LC 



.M 



T| 






m 








- ^ 



"^^zii^-' 










5"' 


% 




,v 







y^^ "^^ 






•■iy '-^. 



v. 



s*^ . \ 1 8 






,^\^ . 0^ -^^ '^O "" A^ ...^'^ k 



^ .V .:.r^7~ 



■V 



o. 



■0' V 



'% 



?v??%^. 






1^ -^0^ :fr 



■■' -k'^ 






c^. 



^.4:.^'^';= '^.^ 












A 



>, 












c 












^^ ^ A^^' ^^.'*'.To'* .0*^ ^o, ^— ,.^\x%^ 









^^^■ 






, %. "'...^ <.o 




C- aV 



\V- -Of. ^ 






"^y. v^' 









> ^,. 






<■. 



^ o , . ■* A -'O 

\\ .1 N c . 'I : 



\..^ 









x\^- "s--. 












^ ^'^• 



^. .^^> 



■x^^ 






^ A^^■ 









^^A v^ 



^^ "''^ 



•*• ^v^,^.^ ■?*, 



s-. .^- 









o. 









*r. 



.V 



•>'^^N 






Oo. 






<^. .r 



%. * « I ^ -^ xV 






=<^ 



ft -^ •>' V 



.^^' 



^' A " ^ 



><P„ 






xO°<. 






A-' 



Till, Poison FouNXiiiN 



OR, 



ANTI PAIIENTAL EDUCATION. 



ESSAYS AND DISCUSSIONS ON THE 



SCHOOL QUESTION 



FROM A PARENTAL AND NON-SECTARIAN STANDPOINT. 



WHEREIN THE DECLINE OF PARENTAL AUTHORITY, THE DOWNPALL OF FAMILY 
GOVERNMENT, AND THE TERRIBLE GROWTH OF CRIME, PAUPERISM, 
INSANITY AND SUICIDES, IN AMERICA, ARE TRACED DI- 
RECTLY AND UNMISTAKABLY TO OUR ANTI- 
PARENTAL PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM. 



^' 



BY 



ZACH. MONTGOMERY, 

Of the California Bar. 



SECOND EDITION. 



S.\N Francisco: 
PUBLISHED BY THE AUTHOR. 

1879. 



\^\ 



TO ALL 
CHILD-LOVING FATHERS AND MOTHERS 
OF AMERICA, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF CREED OR PARTY, 
IS THIS LITTLE VOLUME MOST RESPECT- 
FULLY DEDICATED BY 
ITS AUTHOR, 



A WORD OF INTEODUCTION. 



This book is intended to present a platform oi universally 
recognized principles, whereon religionists of all denominations 
and non-religionists can and must unite, if they would move one 
step in the direction of educational reform. It traces the de- 
cline and downfall of parental authority, the ruin of family 
government, and the alarming increase of crime, pauperism, in- 
sanity and suicides in the United States, directly and unmistak- 
ably to our anti-parental public school system, and draws a 
parallel between the State system of education on the one hand, 
and the parental system on the other; giving the proof, in actual 
official figures, to show that those trained under the former 
system furnish, in proportion to population, six criminals for 
every one furnished by those trained under the latter system. 

Let nobody condemn this book before he knows its contents. 
"When on the ides of March, Julius Caesar was on his way to 
the Eoman capitol, where a band of conspirators were in waiting 
to take his life, it is related that one Artemidorus handed him 
a small piece of writing, to inform him of the danger which 
awaited him at the capitol, and urged him to read the Jittle 
document immediately, as it was of great importance to him- 
self. Indeed, so urgent was Artemidorus in his request, that the 
great Emperor, becoming impatient, exclaimed; ''What! is the 
follow mad?" How much better it would have been for Caesar, 
had he read the note before deciding on the question of his 
friend's madness! 

We now say to every parent into whose hands this little book 
may fall, and whoso children are going to our anti-parental 



vi A WoED OF Introduction. 

scliools, for God's sake, for the sake of your children, and of 
your own domestic happiness, stop one moment and read just 
the first ten pages of the facts — the stubborn, undisputed and 
indisputable facts and figures, — contained in this volume, and we 
promise that you yourself will say that there is in the public 
school-room a danger more to be dreaded than was that which 
awaited Julius Caesar at the Roman capitol on the ides of 
March. 

Now don't, as Osesar did, say "What! is the fellow mad?" 
Wait until you have first read the document, lest the fruit of 
your folly be as bitter, if not as bloody, as that of Csesar's. 



CONTENTS. 



Chapter I. 

PAGB 

Anti-Parental Education — A people properly educated more 
prosperous, contented, happy and law-abiding than an 
uneducated people — State System of Education adopted 
in New England more than 200 years ago; its inevitable 
tendency to increase Crime, Pauperism, Insanity and Sui- 
cides; it furnishes six criminals where the Parental System 
furnishes one, as shown by statistics compiled from the 
U. S. Census Kex3orts — Anti-Parental School Laws of Cali- 
fornia — It is made criminal for a parent to take his own 
child from a public school, and send it to a private school 
without the consent of the School Directors 1 

Chapter II. 

The Natural Law on the subject of Education as laid down by 
Bouvier, Blackstone, Kent, and Dr. Wayland — Conflict be- 
tween State Laws and the Natural Law as regards educa- 
tion — A child expelled from a public school because in obe- 
dience to parental command he absents himself from school 
on a religious holiday — A penal offense for "&, parent to in- 
sult a public school teacher in California — General igno- 
rance as to the real fruits of the State System of Educa- 
tion — Want of harmony among the friends of Educational 
Eeform — Causes therefor, and how they may harmonize — 
A j)latf orm broad enough and strong enough for all 14 

Chapter III. 
The Anti-Parental School System dissected and analyzed 20 

Chapter IV. 

A voice from San Quentin — California educated convicts, all 
the younger criminals can read and write — Two more Peni- 



viii Contents. 



FAQS 



tentiaries necessary to accommodate Massachusetts Public 
Scliool pupils — California Public Scbools the high-road 
to the Penitentiaries — How the one serves as a Preparatory 
Department for the other 23 

Chapter V. 

Thoughts on Government — The True Principles of Government, 

and their application to the School Question 37 

Chapter VI. 
^ Parental Love and Education , . . . 41 

Chapter VII. 
y> Duty of Parents in the matter of Education 46 

Chapter VII. 
The Bible in the Common Schools 50 

Chapter IX. 

Horrors of our Anti-Parental Public School System as exempli- 
fied in a San Francisco school-room 55 

Chapter X. 

Unparalleled Barbarity toward Public School children contin- 
-i^ed — What the grand jurymen said on the subject — 450 
children in a pile 58 

Chapter XI. 

Eeport of Committee on Public School Horrors continued — 

Proud monument to our youthful and intelligent city 62 

Chapter XII. 
The " California Leader" on our State School System 65 

Chapter XIII. 
The " Leader" and the Common Schools again 69 

Chapter XIV. 

The "Leader" and the Common Schools continued — The 

"Leader " becoming adverse to discussion 74 



Contents. ix 

Chapter XV. 

The " Leader " and the Schools continued — What they teach 
as History in the San Francisco Public Schools — Jefferson 
Davis loictured as a Thief — The Confederates charged with 
having hired Booth to assassinate Lincoln, and other 
ridiculous falsehoods gQ 

Chapter XVI. 

False Teachings excused because there are spots on the Sun 

The Business of Pupils to correct the Errors of History. . 86 

Chapter XVII. 

Examination of a San Francisco Primary Public School Sheep- 
skins supposed to be obtained from the backs of cows— 
A wooden table ascertained to be a four-footed beast, and 
a San Francisco Public School Mistress iDronounced a 
quadruped qq 

Chapter XVIII. 
The " Flag" on the " Occidental " and Common Schools 94 

Chapter XIX. 
How our Public School Histories are made 96 

Chapter XX. 

Educational Query — Should we send our children to learn 
decency and propriety from a teacher who himself neither 
knows nor practices these virtues gg 

Chapter XXI. 
Pu]3ils of the Lincoln School marching through Georgia 102 

Chapter XXII. 

The "Napa Eegister" on the Public Schools and Public 

School teachers — No Jeffersonian Democrat need apply. . . 104 

Chapter XXIII. 

From the Public School to the City Prison— Some of the Pa- 
triots of the Lincoln School 107 



X Contents. 

PAcn 

Chapter XXIV. 

A practical illustration of the workings of tlie Anti-Parental 
System — A teacher refuses to allow a pupil to see her dying 
mother^ 110 

Chapter XX Y. 
Boston and San Francisco, a parallel drawn 113 

Chapter XXVI. 
Discussion of the School Qiiestion with an able lawyer — ^Both 

sides represented 117 

Chapteb XXVII. 
A Blast from a Preacher 133 

Chapter XXVIII. 
The "Examiner " and the School Question 137 

Chapter XXIX. 
Willie Crane and the Board of Education — A boy seven years 
old sent to the City Prison from the Public School on a 
false charge of stealing jewelry from his lady teacher .... 144 

Chapter XXX. 
Ignorance or mendacity of the ' ' Times " 149 

Chapter XXXI. 
Superintendent Swett's Public School readings — A choice spec- 
imen — How to ascertain a teacher's politics by examining 
him in history 152 

Chapter XXXII. 
Assembly Bill to amend the California School Law, introduced 

by Z. Montgomery in the California Legislature in 1861. . . 155 
Opening Speech of Z. Montgomery on the School Bill 158 

Chapter XXXIII. 
Closing Si^eech of Z. Montgomery on the School Bill — Running 
debate with Hon. John Conness — The Hon. John thinks 
that conscience is played out 175 

Chapter XXXIV. 
Short Address to children — "Honor thy Father and thy 

Mother" 188 



PART FIRST. 



THE POISOK FOUNTAIN 

OR, 

ANTI-PARENTAL EDUCATION. 

CHAPTEK I. 

The writer intends to offer no apology to tlie reading commu- 
nity for the publication of this book. As soon would he think 
of apologizing to the slumbering inhabitants of a city in 
flames, for attempting to disturb their rest by the vigorous 
ringing of a fire-bell. Far better that they awake even in 
anger, than to awake not at all. 

If the reader will but follow us, even to the extent of a few 
pages, we promise to demonstrate, by incontestable facts and 
figures drawn from soilrces which will not and cannot be im- 
peached, that the calamity at which we are endeavoring to 
alarm our countrymen, is far more wide spread and direful in 
its consequences than any conflagration that ever devastated a 
city. We promise to prove that our boasted New England 
public school system, as now by law established throughout 
the length and breadth of the American Eepublic, is a poison- 
ous fountain, fraught with the seeds of human misery and 
moral death. But, says the reader, how can that possibly be 
trae? Can it be denied that an educated people are more 
moral and virtuous, more contented, happy and law-abiding 
than an ignorant people, and if so, how can it be charged that 
a system of education which almost entirely banishes illiter- 
acy from the land, is fraught with so much evil to those who 
are brought under its influence ? These are candid questions, 
and they shall receive candid answers. It is very true that 
ignorance is the mother of vice. It is also true that an 
educated people, if properly educated, are more moral, virtu- 



2 The Poison Fountain, or 

ous, contented, Iiappy and law-abiding than an ignorant 
people. 

Thus far, we think there can be no difference of opinion 
between the most inveterate supporter of the New England 
public school system and ourselves. 

Now, keeping steadily in view this common standpoint, name- 
ly, that a people j^roperZ?/ educated are more moral, viitucus, 
contented, happy and law-abiding than an ignorant peopli^, 
let us suppose that we somewhere find living, side by side, twc 
communities, one of which is made up almost entirely of edu- 
cated people, while the other is largely composed of illiterate 
people; and let us further suppose that amongst those consid- 
ered educated you find that in proportion to their population 
they have six criminals to where the more illiterate community 
have but one ; suppose that they have nearly two paupers to 
where the more illiterate people have but one; suppose that 
they have two insane to where the illiterates have only one; 
suppose that their death list shows four suicides to where that 
of the illiterates shows but one, and suppose that the same list 
shows three deaths from the criminal indulgence of the brutal 
passions, while that of the illiterates shows but two, what con- 
clusion would you arrive at with reference to that Jdnd of edu- 
cation ? 

Adhering to the proposition with which we set out a moment 
ago, namely, that a people properly educated are more moral, 
virtuous, contented, happy and law-abiding than an uneducated 
people, would you not be forced to the conclusicyi that there 
must be something Avrong, terribly, radically lorong , in a system 
of education so much more direful in its results than even 
illiteracy itself? 

But just here, perhaps, the reader will ask us, as he has a 
right to ask, ' 'what application has your supposed case to the 
question under discussion ?" Just have a little patience, good 
reader, and you shall see the application 

■" For this educated communit}^, let us take the native born 
white population of the six New England States, to-wit: Massa- 
chusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Connecticut and 
Rhode Island, and for the unlettered community, we will take 
the native born wliites ot the six States of Virginia, Maryland, 
Delaware, Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina. It will 
be observed that the States thus enumerated are either a part of 



Anti-Parental Education. 3 

the original thirteen, or such as have been carved out there- 
from. 

Both of these communities started on their career of exis- 
tence about the same time ; both were composed mainly of 
people from the same part of Europe ; people who spoke the 
same language and had been accustomed to the same laws, 
manners and usages; people who possessed the same Christian 
religion, pretty much all of whom (outside of little Maryland) 
were of the protestant faith, and took as their religious guide 
the same bible and even the same translation of that bible. 

There was one important particular, however, in which these 
two communities widely differed at the very start, as we shall 
presently see. 

"More than two hundred years ago the principle was incor- 
"porated into the legislation of Massachusetts, that the ivhole 
"people must be educated to a certain degree at the puhlic ex- 
"pe??se, irrespective of any social distinctions." (A)- 

Again, "In Massachusetts, by statute, in 1G47 each town con- 
"sisting of fifty householders was directed to maintain a 
' 'school to teach their children to read and write, and every 
"town of one hundred families was to maintain a grammar 
"school to fit youth for the college. The common schools of 
"Massachusetts have been kept up to this day by direct tax 
"and individual subscription, and nowhere in a population of 
"equal extent has common elementary education been more 
"universally diffused,'' (1) 

"The compulsory system of supporting common and gram- 
* 'mar schools in each town is sustained, to this day, in Massa- 
"chusetts, and enforced by indictment. (2) 

At a very early day, after their settlement, a similar system 
of education was adopted in all the other New England States, 
from which fact the system seems to have taken the name of 
"the New England system." Chancellor Kent says : "In New 
"England it has been a steady and governing principle from 
"the very foundation of the colonies, that it was the right and 
"duty of the government to provide, by means of fair and just 



Note j4 — Sf'e work entitled "The Daily ''ublic School," published by J. B. Lippincott in 
18(56, p 121. See Kent's CommeutarieB, vol. 2, p 210. 

(1) See 2d Kent, 210-211. 

(2) Commonwealth vs. Inhabitants of Dedbam, 16 Mass. It., p 111. 



4 The Poison Fountain, ok 

"taxation, for the instruction of all the youth in the elements 
"of learning." (1) 

On the other hand, the six enumerated States, comprising 
what we have agreed to call the unlettered community, steadily 
resisted the New England system up to a very recent date. 

Virginia, which occupies about the same relation to the 
latter community thtit Massachusetts does to the former, 
according to Lippincott's Gazetteer of the World, published 
in 1856, had at that time "no general free school system, but 
"made an appropriation for the instruction of the poor." (2) 

Thus these two communities, the one with its New England 
public school system and the other without it, traveled along, 
side by side, for about two hundred years, until A. D. 1860, 
when the eighth United States decennial census was taken, and 
the following was the showing of these two communities, as 
will appear by reference to the annexed table No. 1. We 
j&nd that at the date referred to, to-wit : 1860, Massachusetts 
and her five New England sisters had 2,665,945 native born 
white inhabitants, and out of these only 8, 543 adults who could 
not read nor write, while Yirginia, with her five sisters num- 
bered 3,181,989 native born whites, of whom 262,802 adults 
could neither read nor write. So that in the six New England 
States the proportion of illiterate native whites was only one to 
every 312, while Virginia and her five sisters counted one illit- 
erate to every 12. But mark you! how stand the criminal 
lists ? Massachusetts and her five sisters, out of her native 
white population of a little more than two and a half millions, 
had on the 1st of June, 1860, just 2,459 criminals in prison, 
while Virginia and her five comparatively unlettered compan- 
ions, with a native white population of over three millions, had 
but 477 in prison. That is to say, those educated under the 
New England system had one native born white criminal to 
every 1,084 native white inhabitants, while those who had gen- 
erally rejected that system had but one prisoner to every 6,670, 
being a disproportion, according to the whole number of native 
whites, oi more than six criminals in New England to one in 



(1) See 2cl Kent, 210. 

(2) See Lippincott's "Gazetteer of the World," puVliBhed in 1856, p 2049. 



Anti-Parental Education. 5 

the other community . (B). A glance at the same table will 
show that the natives educated under the New England system 
had one pauper to every 178, while those who had managed to 
live without that luxury had but one pauper to every 345. 

Of those who in one year had died by suicide, New England 
had one to every 13,285 of the entire population, while Virginia 
and her five sisters had but one suicide to every 56,584, and of 
those who perished, the victims of their criminal lusts. New 
England had one to every 84,737, while her neighbors, that had 
never enjoyed her educational advantages, l^ad but one such 
victim to every 128,729. We have not before us the list of' 
insane in the several States for 1860, so we borrow from the 
report furnished by the Census Marshal of 1870, where it 
appears that the New England system produced (of those born 
and living in their native States respectively) one insane person 
to every 800 native born inhabitants, while the rejection of that 
system resulted in one insane to 1,682 native inhabitants. 

Note B — The proportion is ascertained by simply dividing the whole number of native 
white inhabitants by the whole number of native white criminals. We omit the fractions in 
both cases. Great care has been taken to avoid mistakes in these computations, but should 
any inacuracy bo discovered, the author will take U as a favor to be informed of the fact, 60 
that it may be corrected in future editions. 



The Poison Fountain, or 



a A "3 



O 
00 



EH 



a a .2 ^ 

fl " o " 

:S ^ c a 

■d a ^ >" 

rt" If S "3 

S H 8 

;;- ^ .2 3 

S » .9 o 









cs P< <u 



a 



•-J (>> cc oa -S 

3 -^ « . '^ 

o 3 ^ "^ ° 

g S ^ .d .- 

i g -S « B 

2 i" S "" 8) 

:r3 .M ^ d '^ 

O g O rS - 

^ "^ 2"S § 

S m a °^ pi . 



2 « 
.fa 



o 




-d 


Cm 


(11 




tJ 


CD 


^ 




o 


SO 










to 
a 


^ 






o 


'^i 


a 


w 


H 


d 




'r^ 


a 


^ 


.?. 


,a 



.g r, ■S S ^^ a o 

w S -g o g g *> 

» .. 5 to S °3 

•d ffl - ® CI g O 

*". §3 a 3 2 -S 



.- c3 Si fci 



f-H CQ 

C3 ^ 



:5 a r? 



o 



w ^ 



fl -5 s fl 
3 o 5 .g 



tj n G 
0) « o 

^ ft ^ 



Proportion being 



Deaths from 
syphilis 



• C> CO 


oomia 
























c» 


o 








tH " 


" " * 


tBiH 


O (M-* 







Proportion of 
Buicides, being 



Suicides. 



; rH -T Ci CO t* I 00 



ooa>o>-(co c; 

-- ■ — CS CO - 
tH --si 

C5 C O i-H O CN 
i-H I-l IH tH W rH 



CO CO CM 1-1 c^ f-1 



Proportion of 
paupers, being 



^ t* o eo 4ft 00 

-* rt< CO CO rt* C3 
rH i-l i-i r-l(M CO 



Native panpers 
receiving State 
aid, June Ist, 
186J. 



Propo r t i o n of 
criminals, be- 
ing 



Native criminals 
in prison June 
1st 



t- d O O 00 m 

>r L- r-i O rji ■* 
tH O u^ Q^ O "* 
■* oi t-Tio'tH 



Ci r-l C5 CS O (M 
Ci i-H O MH ^ t- 
O Ol C\^ CO 00 
cTc^'co" iH 



t- O) o »o o o 

Ci CO 00 CT) ^ o 



Proportion of na- 
tive illiterate, 
being 



. Ci C3 H' o -^ 
( L- O 00 ^ 1-1 
I (M CO -^ -* i-f 



Natives over 21 
y'rsof nge who 
can neither 
read nor write. 



Population 
native white.. 



Population 
total 



f= CO CO ■* lO CT 

CO en -'3 o cq o 

CO O C3 O CT c^ 



«0 4ft UO d tH ftO 



ui CO<N cncoiH 



OCO CO to t- o 



(M c^ i-f :o ^ ^ 






Oaoo 


OOCOiH 


0» 










C- ».H 


















0-* iO 




tOlH 






o 








- .. » 




rH ' 










o 









•* OCO CO'^CO 
t- rH O O C- O 



.* ift 40 1^*1 CO 00 



'i'oncq »o 00 



_ o 

_. ^ T-i t-ift ; 

en ^ _j,o; 

■^ O CO (TICO - 

o ^_ 

CM rH- • ^ 



r^O— ' O <N -H 



CO O Cl (M t- O 

t- CO CJ CS »-< *H 
Cl^ lO^ CO oO_rH 

lO to'io O O icT 



£ ^i2_ 



CS O rH t- O iO 



Aj cs ^^ C5 ^- c 

CO 



^ »ft IM OOcMCOOO 



O O CO O t~ CI 



-.*< 4ft CO t- -* «3 
C-T O 40 iH CO t-4 

CO CO '^i^'^co 

Ol O i-l 00 CO rH 
C3 t- O CO 4ft O 
4ft o 1-1 4ft CO CS 



Ol 00 CO eft C4 00 
.<?l ,-1 rt 00 CI w 
0_ C0_ CJ_ CS_ CO t- 

t^Tco c^b^dco 

CO en rH 4^ Ci O 
CO 40 rH O C5 t' 



.9-S 



« .a CD a; o o 



Anti-Paeental Education. 



So I ~H S -t; i? ft 
•9 o 3 



2 ^ ^ 



i 5 =5 .° ° 
« o3S§ 

1 1 1 

ft'g a 
si « 



K rt ^ g a 

£ ^ ^3 i: .2 

"S ° § ■"■ "=« 

O CU .. p ^ 

^ a M -^ g< :. 

■^ vh -g H p. ;H 

<i> u a . 

J2 n o <» 
ft 



. -3 O 



O dj 



9 .a 



« O « 



CD U) 

a ^ 



fl '^ "2 ^ 'S 





OS 

m 
<s 


a 
To 

■s 


o 

g 

c3 


1 


■g 


-a 

a 

.a 

o 


'o 

.a 
a 
"o 


CO 

a 


o 
a 

03 






1 


5 






a 
n 




a 




^ 

^ 
M 


a 


1 

a 


a 
"3 


a 


"3 


o 

s 


o 

3 


o 


o 


© 


f> 


o 


to 


•rH 


^ 


-a 


c; 


a 


c- 


f} 


■3 
a 


h 




o 


a 

a 


,a 


_1 


^ 


00 


a 

to 


o 


r3 

a 




a 

o 


iS 


C3 
P, 


1 


o 




a 


a 

.2 


a 

»4 


> 

o 


3 


^ 




H 


ft 


O 


:t 


ft 


s 


O 


<U 


o 
g 


ft 

P 


t-l 


a 


fl> 


«J 


e3 


•^ 




o 
o 


ft 


p; 


_a 


eS 


a 


*"• 


o 




rf 


r3 


-^. 


W 


- 


1 




CI 




;d 


C3 


&^ 


■0 

a 

Hi 


CD 

a 


03 
■3 


a 
o 


3 


3 


a 

ft 


"a 



ft CD P 



,9 a 



a s jj 



^^a tD_£;J5-2'3 §<.£; 






S :C 
o =a 
o a 



•3 "S 



iQ Oi c3 "H n CJ t^ 
O ^ > *' ft f-i o 

[> a p ^ . =3 <« 



ft 



^ ft'g 

2 s « 5 

O g C3 *^ 

•I-.,-- ^jd rfe^ a.,---* 

03 fl^ <" OjOW^cS 

fl 03 ^- J3 m Es o pi 

" " S -^ -2 ^ -9 " 



o a 03 ^ 

h <u a t; 



^ ^ o 



o 



S&Sa-^^^aa 
^gpao^iSo-S 



""-at 

5 .a a 3 "s 

- •? .a 






q r i; 



> S -§ ^ ^ .£ 
o i! ^. cl I a a 

l» >-4 ^ 03 « ,2 CO 



1 ei OS CO «o CO o 
W fH CS LO CO lO 
00 t- c- t- 00 00 



Proportion of in- 
sane being 



Insane, born and 
living in t li o 
ijtate 



Proportion of na- 
tive white pau- 
pers being 



00 rH t- O 00 O 
t' O to -* t- M 

O ni CO ^ '* iH 



CI O CS -+* 00 ''S 
00 ^ CI O C-3 X 



Native white pau- 
l^ers receiving 
State aiil June 
1, 1S70 



CS C5 tH CO CO t- 
■^ c J CO c< CJ O 
r^ t-_CN CO rt ■<JI 
eo'"r-riHCrr4' 



Proportiun of na- 1 ='i'*.=l=> =1" 
tive white jms- | '='"^ ^ "^ "^ 
ouors being. .. \ S 



Native white pris- 
oners June 1st. 



LO O CO CI X5 CO 
lO fi -^ O i-H r-t 
C^ f-t iH i-H C) r-l 



Population 
native white. 



Population entire 
native 



t- C^ CO 

_, i-H r^ -r 

O !-<_ Tjl CO C- Ci 



CI i-H r^ -^ i-H CI 



I- 00 DO ^> ■-< ' 



•^ CS O (M W5 fc- 
CO 00 Oi CO — lO 

O ^— CO O X CTS 

co'od co'-tco'-H 
t- CO jO o o to 
O CI C4 i-t ■* iH 



■^ . to ! * 



ft • K 3 3 
S *.• 3 .il -3 

H ij .3 -M iH 

as rt « « 

='fea =£ a-^ 
^ a; o " O.C1 



O .-H CO O O 50 



<(M C^iH C» 



. C^ b- 00 O 00 

J 00 Tt( o o o 



00 CO t- CO CO CC LO 
S"^ "-I O OOlOO 
CO CO -^ -V CO CO •* 



r-l Ol CO O OS CO tTS 
CO -^^ C^ L- f-H X CO 
C- CS CS CJ i-l CO JO 



t- C^ r-( lO t- 00 « 

1-1 O '^ CO -^ t^ -<*< 
t-_,-t^r-(Or^rt 0_ 
rH CS C-' ■* iO cfcf 



^ rt CO O CT O W 




OOCOrHCOO^rH 
02 CC o I- CS t;s "O 


o 



5 " ^ ■* 00 CS C< 



d CO CO GO lO rH : 
ty Oa (» <M t- 00 ( 
to CO CO to CM ' 



C-3 O OS <M d CT CO 
00 O I - 00 ro CO CI 



CO (N r-( rH o to ■<* 



;■:::: 3 



CO 



; o 0.3 

f< tj CO 

n.S « c; o s « 



The Poison Fountain, or 



Proportion being 
one to every... 



iH OCO CO 
CO WO o 



QOOt-CD 00 CO OS C5 00 »H C^ IM 



oo_co o C3co_mcn o 

»'crb-"b-'b-"«ri 

O CO ■ 

r-t iO 



COCQOCO-<*('^COOO 



COlOl 
t « < 



WsSr-liHiM 



11 lO .I rt t- 

OlO 05rlO 



Deaths from 
syphilis 



COOO^rHCDCOCSiH 



iHr-IQO t-00 



iH'* W05 IN 



Proportion being 
one to every. . . 



■^OCSCOQOCOOOt 



)'-l IC OOO -*r 



rH1005C000100^^C3-^>-t0^t~OOOi 



■-* -^ 1-t lO CO ■* CO O CO <M CC CO iH -.^tl r-l c^ CO ^ -^ 



OOiHCO-^COlCt-CMCOOlOOiO-"* 

i-HOOlt-OyDOSt-^OOCO-tJIrHO 
IrO^O O tH_0O ^O -^Oi CS 00 t- CS r-l 
O CO O '^'O ci-^Tcit-^o O »0 COCO 

T-icjc<oioiocoi-iajcoc^i-iiO'* 



Total suicides... 



ICOOOOOIM^C^-^OOOiOC^OCO-^OOOCS- 
1 CON (N'XiCT'H CO O) CO ft rH CO 0( cq 



i-i-^i-HocoTH-^ji-^aoooooao 

CO CT CO tH -iifl X rH COC^C^COr-l 



Proportion being 
one to every.. . 



0:>T-<C0l0»Ot-«DCaOOTH(M00'M7-<C0C0T-tt->n 
CSCOC^-^OrHOOCDCXOOOO-^-^QOOOCOOO 
T-(00C^(MCOt-"*as'-H t-^tO rH O rH 00 r-t 00 C^C' Ci 

iHiHcT VH iH iH CO rH C^" r-TrHC^" 



t:-<!il»(N(N50O00l>t-(M50t-ei 

•^iHt-'0*OlOlOOO'^000''*»H 
TH-^CO-rHCOiHiOCOC^OUsr-KNCO 



Native paup ers 
Bupporte d by 
the State June 
let, 1860 



TlU5lft00t-(iftC0t-OClt-05t0t-rHC00iOC0CS 



, J t- o '^ :o o o o c 

■*i-)r-l»OCOrHiHC-*HCO 



^'<4<-*<MOt-t-— HCO 

t'lHiH^OtMOcTllO 



C^lCOCDdOmOlO-^CDOOOOWa 
b-OCDC^Oi-iO'SHOt-Ot-lC^rH 
O CO (Lir^'^fc-^ ^-<*i -^^t- r-t O CO 00 
CT i-Tt-^f-TiJo' •-* r-T r-T-HT 



Proportion being 
one to every. . 



C0»ra-^iOCSOC^C<l(MOC0iHCC'CiCDC?3000^r-(O 

CJUOCrs-<+1c^lOCac010 01C5C-)THOt~^HOOCOOOO 
OOC^OOOCOCJOi^-^tO CO CN Cs 00 O Ca^cD r-^^CO^-^O 



i-HOt-t-OOrHcqOt-OOCaOO 
T-tcJOrHOOCit-t'rHt-r-ICMCO^ 

C^^-^^O O li^OO C5^CO^rH_OD 00 *r3 io 0> 

C^" ■'ir rH O t-^ t-^ CO f-T lO T-T iC Co' CD cT 



Native criminals 
in prison, June 
Ist 






CO CN CO "^ <^ »n) O W3 OO CO CO o t» 



Proportion being 
one to every,, . 



cocoooco■*<^^'^c^■^W5«QOt-lO'*coc<^t-b-cqcsc^OQOl-^05WH^coT-^wc1c^t• 



iH T-t (M i-i iH tH « Cq "^ CO T 



COt-iMTHOCOt-'«HT-t >!fC0 10rHi-iiHC0Or^Q0 



Natives over 21 
years -wlio can [ g^poc^p 
neither read I t^ 
nor write ^ 



o:)u:3Cooocococo»f:!Ci05'^o-TWOtocc».ot-co 
CO '-^ T-T io CO C5 i-o of oT >-':r wti cf CO ci* 00 >-c -H 1-H 1-1 



O CO tD C^ T— O ^ "." 



■tOOO<M<M(M(MCOOC9 

_ _-T—O^.:O0SCDC0C0O«0 
1^ tH CC O C-J^ C3 CN^ I>^ (M^ co^ oa CO CO 

ro'-^'cc'i-TrfTTH Lo''crT-r co cT 

H CS C- '(H ■-;*< iH CO T-i CO 



Population, n a- 
tive white 



O^OrHCOOt-COTfJiMCOC'lb-CO'THClTHCOOlOl 
OOCOJOlOtr-rHOM-CO'-lO'^C'lC^lOCNr-l'r^CJt 
t-lO-^-riHClCOTHtOfMUi/O-^Cl ^^"^^^"^ ^=^1 " 

cT c:? oo" cT rH »o co' tr^ <N x' -*" o CO o c-i o o to 

f-<(MC0Ir-r't^C0a0?3CDC:t-CiOClt-O^_ . 
O CO CN CO tH O CO 01 O 00 cm lO lO OS ^ CO C5 ?H 



CICSCOIO"^'— CSr-(UOC^OOW3 

CJ O C4 c-j^co r-^c^co oo c^ co i*? o» 

"3"rttaOl^f-t-<*<t-COC:'rHt-Xt-Oi 
O O CO O O '^ T-i OI CO 03 CN O ^ 



O^OrHCSO'^OOl^f-t-^i* 



<N 



C< CS 



Population total. 



^O■THI^-^:D■4^O1-HXC0^:0"TH(^lCiCSOC0ifJC■^C0r^C0l0•-rac^r-^»J0OOC0^l0C0 00'T^ 

^■~"-"— "--—"' " To -riTt-^io'ccroo f-^rn'oTr-Tc'i (N CO o cf o rN cr(rq"to cc o ■^i m «d ua 

- —.__-. ^__,.^ — -'"i~-OOC5COiOOt-OOOt-<Oit- 

COCOO^CO CirHt^rHCOOOmt* 



COCOt'-'USTH-^LOi-llOt-OOOCJCOCO-^OiOO 

OS^CO-*rHr-iOt-;^0-D^<XH-lr-1lt*CO O C^t- t- i-H 

r-TiHTH tH t-T 1-1 



« CH rH iH 



^ O « c3 
5 «— t O 



.5 05 5 



: :5 : ; : ■ .2 : :n 

' " m • 'S : J •' ft >i • "O 

''S P fl ft._; -M e3 a CO •g 3 
■ aAa -g'S g .w 3 ^3 c o 






Mi) 









S o 



Anti-Parental Education. 



o 

00 



^ » 



pq 

EH 



'~ " ~> O O ■*S' C^ CO o 



tuD CO »-« -*< CS CO (N ! 



«o o "* to 



rt o g 



o 


?» 


0) 


a> 




















'« noQ 


fl 


^ 






fl 


o 


^ 




o 


2 


C3 


;d 










p. 




























£ 












o 


a 


P- 
P 


C3 


K 


o 


P. 





" ^ rT'x 






■O»'»**-^'^C0'*0000t-CDO00C«» 
XTHO-V■<!*^^-lr-iCO 



rH'*<Nt-"*iHCC4 0"^ w< 






ooT-i^co «:Goo- oooo 



soot-cioiococoooiooc^oO'^dOcDcod'^wsT-H-^eooociaoiococicociOOii^co 

3Cl)i-l-^0-t*OCiM-tt<t-UOUOCOOl-00'-triOOOOOOCO«OOCOCI--J<CaCl»nQOCO 

^CO'^rH'«^C;OOOGOOOiHCDC4t-HCi C^CO <© 00 iH U3 lO O CO C^«0 COCOOiJOC*»CO-<*iOD 

iH rH cT ci i-h" r-T rH rH oT rH rH O i-H 



MfOOrHeOCOOOCOffO«OlOCOC»Cir-l«OOCOOO'**<t*CSOOCiOSCa(N"*t-iOC3COrH(MCs-* 
"COU^C4oiC»L-'--COQOO«^t-'^CO<NlD»--'a><NiC5C^COOCOr-lv:iOlOOOOOt-CO-*'JOt- 



CO CS COr^(M 



ClClOrHrHCSClrHt'COt-'^tfOT 



CO ■* 00 Cft (N CI 00 CO 



P<^ CJ to 



O -^ t' 
rH O *X?^ 

1-t cs' ci CO* 



■^t-C3iOi-'CS»-'^'^T-iC'ICO(MlOCit-OOSiOCOOOOt-T-«-*<b-CirH'^t-OOi-HCO»OCiX 

COOrHC^OOOOC)CSOL--t^L'^Ljr-1-^ii-2C3-^L--i-HCQ"^ClIr--r-iOCOCiCO-OCOC-lt-0-^- 
'ni>LJOCrsrH03iOrHO-*^asO C^t-^Oi "^^ =35 O^C^ O <© "^ "*„ "^'^ t"! '^ '^ ^ "^ ""l — . "^ "^ '^. C?^ "^^ 
Co" C^ tH t-" -* ■^'" 1^ CA CO ri rH cf rH rH <N rH -^ji" ci rH i-i i-T IQ « i-H iH rH Cs" 






? 


=! 








O 
P< 



Sc001-^I4Sc^lC10t-OC^OOOlOr-(C^S>COCOCOC505C4COC1^0COr-l£03(C-;-5«COG5 
SrH«5C<l iH CI O C» C4 »0 ■« CJ CQ rl «1 1-H 00 i-l «* CO iH CO O ■-< i-l CO C) rH CO i-liH 




O^QOCOC»CO-t>CO<M0 1>5SCOOOCOpS'SSf5S22?SiSiZ 
■w UJ ou I.- UJ w r-, .V O ^ O O ^ O O t-.C O C^'-^.H,'^.^.'".'-" ^^.^- .^- - -^^^ 
•-^-X'>'^'^^^^^-H ea'crTo (--^Lo'x't- --To O cTcTcM rt*^ t^"*COCiaacOrHt-OOCOrH^O 

i^^Ji^SSooScoSSioSSSSSCTSt- e'i.o =1 =1'-' « <^'.t- ^ ^l-" « 

rtcTrH I-T i-T r-T Co"r-(e^ CJ rH rt 



OOOlfiOrHdCOCOOO 
Jj ^ W rH t- 00 X O '-1 ^1 

O "* ■* GO^OO t^o^o 
b-'rToCo'o"^ C> ^ C^ ^3 
05-* 



03 g'S-^ 2 



rt rt 01 ea 

J t' .~ 9 a n 



! o ec S 3 S to £ 



CI, t>> 

=3 S So 



n o ec J; S J^ S ^ a L; >H 
•Zl S -2 -S o a ? is "^ "^ "^ 



c8— 5 

'S brH 



. „ rt >» 

H-'-'O S 

O ^ CJ 






10 



The Poison Fountain, or 



TABLE 5—1870. 

In 1870, the several States and Territories, of the United States, not count- 
ing Mississippi, Texas and Utah, supported 183,198 public school teachers, 
educated G, 228,060 public school pupils, at an expense of $64,030,073. (See 
compendium of Ninth Census of the U. S., Page 488.) The following table 
is compiled from the above source . 



STATES. 



Alabama 

Arkansas. . . 
California.. . 
Connecticut., 
Delaware.. . 

Florida 

Georgia 

Illinois , 

Indiana 

Iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky . 



Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 

Massachusetts. . . 

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Mississippi 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

Nevada.... 
New Hampshire. 

New Jersey 

New York 

North Carolina . . 

Ohio 

Oregon 

Pennsylvania 

Rhode Island 

South Carolina. . 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Vermont 

Virginia 

West Virginia . . . 
Wisconsin 



• CO a> - f» M 



67, 

72, 

75. 

88, 

16. 

10, 

11 

677, 

446. 

205. 

58. 

218. 

25. 

152, 

83, 

242, 

254, 

103, 



263 
045 
527 
449 
835 
132 
150 
623 
066 
923 
030 
340 
832 
765 
226 
]45 
738 
408 



320. 

15. 

1. 

59 

80, 

719, 
41. 

737, 
29, 

745, 
27, 
31, 
82, 



313 
052 
856 
408 
105 
181 
912 
693 
822 
734 
250 
362 
970 



52 

8 

101. 

337 



067 
700 
493 
008 



V trie: o 



OOP 



I 629,626 

552,461 
1,627,733 
1,426,846 

127,729 
76,389 

175,844 
7,810,205 
2,003,599 
3,245,352 

660,635 
1,150,457 

473,707 

843,435 
1,146,057 
3,207,826 
2,164,489 

895,204 



3,092,733 

182,160 

81,273 

403,310 

1,562,573 

8,912,024 
205.131 

8,528,145 
139,387 

7,292.946 
355,582 
279,723 
683,008 



516,702 

98,770 

599,811 

2,209,384 



O 

V o 



C--5I 



? 9 36 

7 66 

21 55 

16 13 

7 58 

7 53 
15 77 
11 52 

4 62 
15 75 
11 37 

5 26 
18 33 

5 52 
13 77 
13 24 

8 49 
8 65 



9 65 
12 10 
43 78 

6 78 
19 56 

12 38 
4 89 

11 56 
4 67 
9 77 

13 04 
8 90 
8 23 



y 92 
11 35 

5 90 

6 65 



Anti-Paeental Education. 11 

One very noticeable fact in this connection, as shown by the 
foregoing tables, is that in the State of Massachusetts, which 
claims the honor of being the founder of the New England 
system of education, while she had by far the smallest propor- 
tion of illiterate native born adults of any, even of the New 
England States, had at the same time much the largest propor- 
tion of native white criminals, she having one criminal to every 
649 native white inhabitants. 

The nearest ajjproach to her was the showing made by the 
State of Connecticut, where there was one native white crimi- 
nal to every 845 native white inhabitants. 

And now, good reader, if you will take the pains to turn to 
the sixth colvimn of figures in table three, which shows the 
relative proportion of native born white criminals in every 
State in the Union in 1860, you will see that Massachusetts 
stands solitary and alone in the grand and magnificent propor- 
tions of her criminal list. California at that time came next 
to her chosen model, having one native born white criminal to . 
every 697 native whites, while Massachusetts had one to every 
649. 

California seems to have resolved, however, not to bo sur- 
passed in her crime list even by her great exemplar, for when 
the next decennial census reports were returned, to-wit : in 
1870, California made a showing of one native white criminal to 
every 51^5 native white inhabitants, thus carrying off the palm 
which ten years before had been awarded to the old State of 
Massachusetts. 

In view of the foregoing facts and figures, is it any wonder ( 
that the Boston correspondent of the San Erancisco Morning \ 
CaZZ tells us "that a large number of public school men haveS^ 
"come to the conclusion that the public school system of that / 
"city is a failure ?'' (A). Or is it surprising that another of 
our leading dailies, the Alta California, speaking editorially of 
the same system as it exists in this State, calls it "our ana- 
conda," and declares that if we are to "judge this system by its 
"apparent fruits, we shall have to pronounce it not only a mel- 
"ancholy, but a most disastrous failure, and that it will be 
"idle to look for the cause of the general rowdyism, idleness 

I70TE ul— See Morning Call of August 5th, 1877. 

i 



12 The Poison Fountain, or 

• 'and viciousness of the rising generation anywhere but iu the 
"training which it has been receiviug?" (C.) 

Even after the civil war, which raged with such terrible fury 
over the Southern and Southwestern States, during the years 
from 1861 t3 1865, whereby thousands of millions of dollars 
worth of property was destroyed, a servile race were emanci- 
pated and the very foundations of the whole social and politi- 
cal fabric upheaved and broken to atoms — even after all the 
bad government which bad white men and bad black men had 
succeeded in forcing upon the subjugated States — still, when 
the census reports for 1870 were published, they showed that 
neither their native white criminals nor paupers counted in the 
proportion even of so much as one, to where those counted two, 
who had been for two hundred years subjected to the ravages 
of the New England ]3ublic school system . (See table No. 2.) 

And this precious system of education is the great boon for 
which in 1870 the American people were paying to the tune of 
$64,030,673, while at. the same time they were grinding through 
this mill of moral death no less than 6,228,060 children. In 
order to maintain this very same system, California alone 
expended during the last fiscal year no less than $2,749,729 16, 
as appears from the recently published biennial report of the 
State Superintendent of Public Instruction. 

Indeed, so infatuated has our youDg State become with this 
crime and pauper-breeding system of public instruction, that 
she has made it a penal offense for the parent or guardian of 
any child between the ages of 8 and 14 years to keep such 
child from the public school, even for the sake of sending it to 
a far better private school of his own choice, and at his own 
expense, unless he first seeks and obtains the gracious permis- 
sion of the School Directors so to do. 

But lest the reader should be disposed to doubt the existence 
of so tyrannical a statute, here it is as enacted by the California 
Legislature on the 28th day of March, 1874 : 

"Section 1. Every parent, guardian or other person in the 
State of California, having control and charge of any child or 
children between the ages of 8 and 14 years, shall be required 
to send any such child or children to a public school for a 
period of at least two-thirds of the time during which a public 

NoTK C — Alia editorial, January 31et, 1872. 



Anti-Parental Education. 13 

school shall be taught in each city and county, or school dis- 
trict, in each school year, commencing on the first day of July, 
in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sev- 
enty-four, at least twelve weeks of which shall be consecutive, 
unless such child or children are excused from such attendance 
by the Board of Education of the city, or city and county, or 
of the Trustees of the school district in which such parents, 
guardians or other persons reside, upon its being shown to their 
satisfaction that his or her bodily or mental condition has been 
such as to prevent attendance at school, or application to study 
for the period required, or that the parents or guardians are 
extremely poor or sick, or that such child or children are 
taught in a private school or at home in such branches as are 
usually taught in the primary schools of this State, or have 
already acquired a good knowledge of such branches; provided, 
in case a public school shall not be taught for three months 
during the year, within one mile by the nearest traveled road of 
any person within the school district, he shall not be liable to 
the provisions of this Act. 

"Section 3. In case any parent, guardian or other person 
shall fail to comply with the provisions of tiiis Act, said parent, 
guardian or other person, shall be deemed guilty of a misde- 
meanor, and shall be liable to a fine of not more than twenty 
dollars; and for the second and each subsequent oflense, the fine 
shall not be less than twenty dollars nor more than fifty dollars, 
and the parent, guardian or other person so convicted, shall 
pay all costs. Each such fine shall be paid to the Clerk of tho 
proper Board of Education or of the District Trustees." 

Thus it is that the votaries of this system have absolutely 
undertaken, by the most tyrannical legislation, to strip every 
parent of the guardianship ot his children and to transfer their 
entire control to an irresponsible Board of School Trustees ; so 
that if these School Directors choose to appoint a libertine or 
a harlot as the tutor of your daughters, and at the same time 
refuse their gracious permission for you to send them to a pri- 
vate school of your own choice, it is with fines or prison dungeons 
that the law proposes to reward you, should you, in obedience 
to the dictates of right reason and your own conscience, seek to 
shield them from the contaminating touch of a vile teacher. 
Is it any wonder that vice flourishes or that virtue perishes 
under tho influence of such a system ? 



14 The Poison Fountain, or 

CHAPTEE IT. 

"WHEEEIN THE" NEW ENGLAND PUBLIC SCHOOL SYSTEM IS EADICALLY 

WEONG. 

Every standard writer on the subject of either laAv or morals, 
proclaims with one voice that parents are bound by the natural 
law to feed, clothe and educate their own children. Bouvier 
says, ' 'The principal obligations which parents owe their chil- 
"dren are their maintenance, their protection and their educa- 
"tion." (1). Chancellor Kent says, "The duties of parents 
"to their children as being their natural guardians, consist in 
"maintaining and educating them during the season of infancy 
"and youth." (2) 

Sir William Blackstone says, "The last duty of parents to 
"their children is that of giving them an education suitable to 
"their station in life ; a duty pointed out by reason and of far 
"the greatest importance of any. For," continues that author, 
"as Puffendorf very well observes, 'it is not easy to imagine or 
"allow, that a parent has conferred any considerable benefit 
"upon his child by bringing him into the world, if he after- 
"wards entirely neglects his culture and education, and suffers 
"him to grow lip like a mere beast, to lead a life useless to 
"others and shameful to himself. ' " (a). Dr. Wayland, in his 
elements of moral science, says : ' ' The duty of parents is gen- 
"erally to educate or to bring up their children in such manner 
"as they believe will be most for their future happiness, both 
"temporal and eternal." (3) Again "he (the parent) is 
"bound to inform himself of the peculiar habits, and reflect 
"upon the probable future situation of his child, and dellber- 
"ately to consider ivhat sort of education will most conduce to 
"his future happiness and usefulness," (4). Again, "The 
"duties of a parent are established by God, and God requires 
"us not to violate them." (5.) According to the laws of 
nature, says "Wayland, "the teacher is only the agent, the 
pare72^ is the principal.'"' (G.j But, under the New England 



(1) Bou'vier's InKtitutes, vol. 2, p 118. 

(2) 2d Kent, 196. 

(a) Cooley's Blactstone, vol. 1, p 449. 

(3) Waylands' Elements of Moral Science, 314. 

(4) Wayland's Moral Science, 310. 

(5) Wayland 321. 
(G) Wayland, 316. 

/ 



Anti-Parental Education. 15 

system, as by law establislied, the parent is not recognized as 
the principal, nor is the teacher regarded as his agent. The 
Legislature of California has gone so far towards elevating the 
teacher above the parents, as to make it a penal offense for any 
parent to even insult the teacher of a public school in the 
presence of his pupils, no difference what the provocation may 
be. 

Section 654, of the Penal Code of this State, reads, "Every 
parent, guardian or other person, who upbraids, insults or 
abuses any teacher of the public schools, in the presence or 
hearing of a pupil thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor." 

If the teacher insults the parent, in the presence of his chil- 
dren, there is no penalty to pay, or if the dirtiest loafer in the 
land insults the teacher of a private school, without the least 
cause or provocation, that is all right ; but woe be to the father 
or mother, who has the temerity to breathe one offensive word 
against the teacher of a puHlc school, in the hearing of his 
pupils, even should it be to chide him for his immoral conduct 
towards the child of the offender. 

In his biennial report for 1864, our State Superintendent of 
Public Instruction — quoting from the judicial decisions of 
some of the Eastern States, construing their public school 
laws, which are, in all respects similar to our own — maintains 
the proposition that "the child should he taught to consider his 
''instructor, in many res2oects, sicperior to the parent in 'point of 
''authority,'' ix\x(\. ''that the vulgar impression th^t parents have 
"a legal rigid to dictate to teachers is, entirely erroneous," and 
further that "parents ha.ve no remedy as against the teacher.^' (1) 
In the State of Vermont, in 1874, a School Committee expelled 
from a public school certain children because of their absence 
from school on a religious holiday, although they had remained 
absent in obedience to the commands of their parents; and 
this, too, was after the school authorities had been appealed 
to, in vain, for leave of absence. This action of the School 
Committee was afterv.-ards sustained by the Supreme Court of 
the State, which based its decision, in part, at least, on the 
ground that "no divine authority had been quoted or asserted'^ to 
sustain the right claimed by these parents. (2) 

(1) Sec Superintendent Swett's Biennial Beport for 1864, p 164-5-0. and Judicial De- 
cisions there quoted. 

(2) Ferriter vb. Tyler, 48 Vt.. 444. 



16 The Poison Fountain, or * 

Thus the law of nature and nature's God, which ordains that 
it is both the right and duty of parents to educate their chil- 
dren ' ' in such manner as they believe will he most for their future 
"happiness,'" is utterly disregarded and set at naught by the 
State, which ordains that it is neither the right nor the duty of 
parents, but of the State, to say when, where, by whom and in 
what manner our children shall be educated. 

Now, it is always possible for either individuals or States to 
disregard and to violate nature's laws, but it is not possible to 
do so without suffering, sooner or later, a penalty, and a pen- 
alty, too, corresponding in magnitude with the importance 
of the law violated. Hence it is — and we assert it without the 
fear of successful contradiction — that those communities, 
which have so long and so glaringly violated nature's laws in 
the matter of education, are now reaping so heavy and so 
deadly a harvest of crime, pauperism, insanity and suicides. 

Dr. Wayland has well said "that the relaxation of parental 
"authority has always been found one of the surest indications 
"of the decline of social order and the unfailing precursor of 
"public turbulence and anarchy." (P). Now, under the 
law, as we have already seen, parental authority is not merely 
relaxed, but it is utterly set at defiance . What, we would ask, 
does parental authority amount to, in the matter of educating 
children, when a parent is not recognized as having any ' 'remedy, 
as against the teacher,"" for the wrongs he may perpetrate against 
his child, and when, as in California to-day, the parent, is in the 
eye of tlie law, a criminal, who ventures to send his own child 
to a school of his own choice, and at his own expense, without 
first going with his hat under his arm to a board of petty offi- 
cials, to beg their 2^ermission so to do ? 

If parents, any longer, have the least vestige of authority 
over the all-important matter of their own children's education, 
which is not wholly subordinated to the private interests, 
prejudices, and i)etty spites of any and every little conclave of 
irresponsible upstarts who, by.hook or by crook, can so manage 
on election day as to have their names on the tickets of the win- 
ning party, we should feel under many obligations if somebody 
would inform us what that remaining parental authority is, or 
where it is to be found. 

(P) Wayland's Elements of Moral Science, p 313. 



Anti-Parental Education. 17 

Is it not the almost unanimous cry, on the part of parents, 
throughout the length and breadth of the land, that they can 
neither command the respect nor obedience of their child- 
ren? and are not our Police Courts crowded, and our county 
prisons and State penitentiaries being filled with beardless 
boys, many of whom have had comfortable homes, and have 
grown up in the society of respectable parents, but never under 
their control? 

But, perhaps, we shall be asked why is it that neither politi- 
cians nor the parents of children have thus far done any thing 
towards furnishing a remedy for all these crying evils. 

We answer, the reasons are numerous ; but the first and 
most important reason we shall assign is ignorance : Ignorance 
of the true and Heaven-ordained relations between parent and 
child; ignorance of the reciprocal duties which they respec- 
tively owe to each other; yes, and ignorance — total ignorance 
— of the foregoing, terrible facts, so clearly revealed by the 
United States census reports. 

Let any one who doubts the general ignorance of our people, 
on this last subject, test the matter, by catechising the first ten 
men he meets concerning the facts, shown by our published 
tables. The truth is, that the advocates of this New England 
system have been so long, so loud and so persistent in pro- 
claiming to the world its supposed excellencies that nine-tenths 
of the Avorld have, without the least investigation, concluded 
to accept it for all that its most enthusiastic admirers represent 
it to be. Were it not for the wide-spread and almost total 
ignorance on the part of parents, as regards the poisonous and 
deadly fruits which they and their children, and society at 
large, are daily reaping from this anti -parental system of edu- 
cation, it could not survive a single month, in its present shape. 
O, how true it is that Ignorance is the mother of vice! 

Another reason why no remedy has been applied to this fear- 
ful malady is a long-standing, deep-seated and constantly fo- 
mented prejudice in favor of the public school system, which 
makes the politicians afraid to attack the monster, lest they 
hurt their popularity. 

STILL another DIFFICULTY, 

Is a want of harmony among those who see and lament the 
terrible evils which this system is bringing on the country, and 



ly The Poison Fountain, os 

who are willing to make any and every sacrifice to avert those 
evils. One says, let ns have the Bible in the schools, another 
says no, I want no Bible in mine; a third says, let us divide 
the school funds amongst all the different religious denomina- 
tions in such a manner that each denomination shall, as a body, 
have control of a portion of those funds corresponding with 
the number of its members; while a fourth says, away with 
such silly nonsense, we have far too much ecclesiasticism in 
the public schools already. But is there not, we ask, 

A COMMON GEOUND WHEREON EVERY FRIEND OP EDUCATIONAL 
REFORM CAN STAND? 

Most undoubtedly there is. Let us recognize, just as the law 
of Nature recognizes, the right and the duty of all parents, 
having the ability so to do, to educate their own children Id 
their own way and by the use of their own funds. 

After all, it is not less the interest than the duty of parents, 
when they can do so, to pay the cost of their own children's 
education and not to allow the State to pay it for them, for be 
it remembered that the cost andcare of 'properly feeding , clothing 
and educating the child, are hid the price luhich Nature demands of 
parents for the incomparable treasure of the child's love, honor and 
ohedience, and just in proportion to the extent to lohich parents 
neglect or refuse to pay this price, in precisely the same proportion 
do they forfeit their right to this inestimable boon . 

Let us suppose that the State should take upon itself to feed 
and clothe, as well as to educate the child; does any one doubt 
that a child thus fed, clothed and educated at the public ex- 
pense would grow up almost wholly destitute of parental affec- 
tion? And who is so stupidly blind as not to see that the educa- 
tionoi the child, after all, is the great nourisher of its affections? 
Eospect, love and veneration do not depend near so much on 
either the source or the character of the food which enters the 
stomach, as upon the source and character of that which is 
taken into the mind and heart. 

But in cases where parents have not suflficient worldly wealth 
to give their children a good elementary education, let the 
State aid them just exactly as it should aid them, when neces- 
sary, with means to feed and clothe their children, rather than 
let them either starve or go naked . But for the same reason 
that the State would not feed the children of its more needy 



Anti-Paeental Education. 19 

citizens upon the most dainty and costly delicacies, nor clothe 
them in the finest silks and satins, so neither should it educate 
them in those higher or merely ornamental sciences not neces- 
sary for those avocations in which they are likely to engage in 
after life. And when the State furnishes educational aid, let 
it do so, always, in harmony with the principles of parental 
guardianship over the child. Let the parent in such cases 
select the school, and the State pay the teacher. Let this boon 
Ije extended to all who need State aid, without regard to differ- 
ences in politics or religion. 

Perhaps, though, we shall be told that so radical a change in 
the public school system, as that suggested, would work the 
destruction of the system itself. If that be so, then we would 
ask whether it is better for us to destroy the system, or to let 
the system destroy us ? 

Again, it may, perhaps, be objected that even if every parent 
in the land had the means and the privilege of educating his 
own children in his own way, still there would always be found 
some parents in every community who would neglect this most 
sacred duty; and what ought to be done with such parents? 
We answer, what ought to be done with those heartless 
parents who, having the means at hand, either of their own, oi 
such as have been furnished by the State, to comfortably feed 
and clothe their children, would, nevertheless, deliberately 
leave them to die of starvation or perish with cold? In either 
case such parents should be punished as criminals against the 
laws both of God and society. But so long as the State under- 
takes to force upon the children of any class of parents a sys- 
tem of education, which they cannot accept without a viola- 
tion of conscience and of Nature's laws, it is nothing less than 
the most cruel tyranny on the part of the State to make such 
a system compulsory. 

Let every friend of educational reform unite in maintaining 
these plain, just and most reasonable principles, and the day is not 
distant when — with Heaven's blessing — we shall restore parental 
authority, re-establish family government, and teach the rising 
generation to love, honor and obey, not only their fathers and 
Jiothers, but also the laws, both of God and their country. 



20 The Poiison Fountain, or 

OHAPTEE III. 

THE ANTI-PARENTAL SCHOOL SYSTEM DISSECTED AND ANALYZED. 

Should we wish to ascertain the exact character and proper- 
ties of the waters of our great Pacific ocean, we would not 
undertake to analyze the whole ocean, for that would be an 
endless task, but we would take up at most a few ounces of this 
water, and after making a thorough analysis of it, we would 
announce the result as indicating the properties and character 
of the waters of the Pacific. So it is if we would make a care- 
ful and reliable analysis of the essential principles and elements 
which go to make up what is known as the Public School Sys- 
tem. If we were to undertake to subject to an analytical test 
the whole system with its entire paraphernalia of teachers, 
pupils, parents, school directors, school teachers, school books, 
school funds and school houses, as they exist throughout the 
country, we should become amazed and bewildered at the 
magnitude of our undertaking, and would probably abandon 
the enterprise in despair. So let us take from this very large 
mass of school material a small quantity of its essential ele- 
ments, just enough to be handled with ease, and examined with 
care, and we shall be the better able to see what is the char- 
acter of the ingredients which go to make up the sj'-stem. In 
order that you, good reader, may not accuse us of unfairness 
in our selection of the particular sample to be analyzed, we 
will allow you to choose your own material. Then cast your 
eyes around you among your friends and neighbors, and name 
for us two of the very best, purest, most intelligent, highly 
educated and reliable men of your acquaintance. Let them be 
men of your own religion, and belonging to the same political 
party as yourself. In a word, let them be two men to whom, 
in preference to all others in the world, you would be willing 
to entrust the guardianship of that beautiful little girl of yours, 
should it please God to take you and her mother away from- her 
during her years of childhood. Now, these two friends of 
yours, whom we shall call A, and B., we shall take it for 
granted are the very best material to be found in that great 
mass of voters who control by their votes the destinies, and 
shape the character of the public school system, as it exists in 
your cit^^ 



Anti-Parental Education. 21 

Now, suppose these two model men and neighbors shoiihl 
some day come to your house, and address you thus: Mr. 
C, we are informed that you are the father of a bright, 
beautiful and intelligent little girl, now about seven years old; 
just the proper age to begin her education. We feel quite 
anxious that she should be properly educated, and, to tell 
you the plain truth, we are afraid that if we leave the matter 
entirely with you, her education will be neglected. Now 
here is what we propose to do. We propose that we — your 
two best friends — together with yourself, shall all enter into 
a written contract, binding ourselves during your daughter's 
minority to contribute annually a certain percentage upon the 
assessed value of our property, which shall constitute a fund 
for the education of this, your little girl. But it must, at the 
same time and in the same contract, be stipulated that it shall 
at all times be in the power of a majority of us three to select 
the teachers and the school-books for your child. Should you, 
against the wishes and without the consent of a majority of us, 
take your child away and send her to some other school, you 
must agree to forfeit, — should we choose to exact it — not exceed- 
ing twenty dollars for the first offense, and not less than twentv 
dollars for each subsequent repetition thereof. You must also 
agree and bind yourself in advance not to withhold your assess- 
ment, even should you withdraw your child from the school of 
our selection, because we should, in that event, need the money 
for the education of other children. 

Now tell us, good reader, could you ever consent, while living 
and in the possession of your reasoning faculties, to entrust 
such a power as this over your infant child — girl or boy — to any 
two men in existence? Would you not spurn such a proposition 
as the above with indignant scorn, come from Avhat source it 
might? We may here remark, in passing, that it surely could 
not better the matter should these supposed frieuds and neigh- 
bors, in consideration of this proposed outrageous betrayal of 
your parental trust, even offer to perpetrate a similar wrong 
against their own children by turning over to you, the insulted 
father, a corresponding share in their parental authority. And 
yet, good reader, this miniature picture which we have just 
drawn of the public school system, presents that system in its 
very best possible aspect; because we have represented you, the 
father, as still allowed to retain in your own hands one-third of 



22 The Poison 1'ountain, or 

that parental jurisdiction and control which the God of nature 
requires jou to exercise over your child, while the other two- 
thirds are to be entrusted to two of the very best men in the whole 
community. But under the public school system as it is by law 
established, instead of retainiDg in your own hands even so 
much as one-third of your parental authority, you retain only 
an infinitesimal fraction thereof. Where there are, as in San 
Francisco, tens of thousands of voters, each father divides his 
parental authority into tens of thousands of equal fragments, 
retaining but one of these fragments for himself, Avhilst the 
great bulk of this authority, instead of being lodged, as in the 
case above supposed, in two of the very best men to be found 
in the city, is scattered around broadcast amongst tens of thou- 
sands of people, good, bad and indifferent. It is gobbled up 
and wielded by every rough and every rake who is allowed a 
vote; and this is what they call our great American Free 
School System. 



Anti-Parental Education. 23 

CHAPTEE IV. 

A VOICE FROM SAN QUENTIN — CALIFORNIA'S EDUCATED CONYICTS — 
ALL THE YOUNGER CRIMINALS CAN READ AND WRITE — TWO MORE 
PENITENTIARIES NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE MASSACHUSETTS* 
PUBLIC SCHOOL PUPILS — CALIFORNIA PUBLIC SCHOOLS THE HIGH 
EOAD TO THE PENITENTIARY — HOW TEE ONE SERVES AS A PREPARA- 
TORY DEPARTMENT FOR THE OTHER. 

The following is from resident director's (Lieutenant Gover- 
ner Jolmstou's) late biennial report, sliowing the condition of 
the California State prison and State prisoners for the two 
years ending June 30, 1877. This report, under the caption of 
"Educational," says: 

*' Turnkey's Table, Number VII, showing the educational 
abilities of the inmates of the prison, gives the number who 
can read and write at nine hundred and eighty-five; read but 
not write, at twenty-four; neither read nor write, at three hun- 
dred and nine. If Ave consider the number of Chinese and 
Indians in our prison who can neither read nor write, and 
deduct them from the whole number so as to match our Whites 
and Negroes against the same in other States, it will be found 
that ours possess the advantage in a large degree. In fact 
among the younger convicts they can all read and write." 

The Turnkey's Table Number III shows that the number of 
Chinamen in the State prison is 197. Now if we deduct this 
197 from the entire number of convicts who can neither read 
nor write, it leaves just 112 who can neither read nor write 
against 985 who can both read and write. Then again, from 
this 112 there remain still to be deducted the Indians, whose 
number is not given in the turnkey's table. But the most 
startling revelation contained in the above extract is found in 
the concluding sentence, which says, ^' in fact among the younger 
convicts they can all read and write." 

Now of the younger convicts, as appears from the turnkey's 
table (No. G) there are some 253 but twenty-one years old, or 
under, while there are 831 under thirty years old. But while 
our young .State is making such rapid strides in the way of 
forcing her boys first into her anti-parental schools and then 
into her penitentiaries, her great exemplar Massachusetts, it 
would seem, is not neglectful of her laurels. The regular 
Boston correspondent of the San Francisco Marning Call, 



24 The Poison FouiNtain, or 

• 
under date of November 16, 1877, says: " The rapid progress of 
"Jcnowledge peculiar to the educational system of this State has led 
** to the erection of two more State prisons, one of which for 
** women was successfully opened a few days ago, the number 
*' of wicked females who knocked for admission being forty- 
*' four. Present indications point toward the rapid filling up 
" of this new institution in a few months."^ 

We are constantly told, by the friends and admirers of our 
anti-parental educational system, that it is much better for the 
State to expend money for schools and school-houses than for 
jails and penitentiaries. Now taking the foregoing figures as a 
basis of calculation, it would be a very interesting process, and 
would doubtless lead to most important results if some admirer 
of our present educational system, who is a good calculator, 
would make an estimate in dollars and cents of the amount of 
money saved to the State of California per annum by that land 
of education which is sustained at a cost of more than two and 
a half millions of dollars a year, and which sends to the State 
prison its hundreds of beardless boys, while total illiteracy — 
which we all lament as a great evil — sends not so much as one 
solitary boy to that popular institution. 

Should anybody, in making such an estimate, find the profits 
exceedingly small in proportion to the investment, let him not 
convert that fact into an argument against education itself, but 
only against this anti-parental system of education; a system 
which, being conceived in crime, brought forth in crime and 
nurtured in crime, must, of necessity, propagate crime. Hoping 
that some one better versed in figures than ourselves will solve 
for us the above problem, we shall now proceed to show HOW ir 

IS THAT OUR EDUCATED BOYS EIND THEIR WAY TO THE PENITENTIARY. 
Here, we will suppose, is an honest, industrious, hard-working 
laboring man, who has a family, consisting of himself, his wife, 
and half a dozen children, half girls and half boys. To put 
the case in as favorable an aspect as possible, we will suppose 
that he is in moderately good circumstances, being out of debt 
and the owner of a comfortable homestead, but is compelled to 
rely solely on his own labor and that of his wife for means 
wherewith to feed and clothe his family. All his children are 
of an age to attend school, and all are attending the public 
schools, as the law directs. In the first place, heavy and fre- 

(1) See Call of November 25. 1877. 



Anti-Parental Education. 25 

quent drafts are made on the father's scanty and hard-earned 
resources, in order to supply these children with all the required 
books and stationery. These six children, too, must each and 
all be dressed, not according to the means of their parents, but 
according to the rules of the school and the demands of 
fashion, and inasmuch as the more wealthy and aristocratic 
classes prescribe the law of fashion, they must dress as well as 
the children of the man who counts his wealth by the million. 
If they do not so dress, they will have to encounter not only 
the contemptuous sneers of fellow-pupils and classmates, but, 
perhaps, the displeasure of teachers, if not expulsion from 
school. The father would reason and, perhaps, remonstrate 
with the teacher on the subject of these rigid and extravagant 
rules of dress, but then he remembers that the law has said, 
that the teacher of a public school is not the agent of the 
parent, nor answerable to him for his conduct toward the pupil. 
He also remembers that the law makes it crimimil for a parent 
to insult a teacher, while the teacher may insult the parent with 
impunity; and for these reasons he does not care to risk an al- 
tercation with the tether on the subject of the boys' dress; it 
w^ould be too unequal a contest. So,, in order to meet these 
growing demands for books, stationery and clothing for their 
children, these poor parents are compelled to work harder, 
dress lighter and feed more scantily than is compatible with 
either health or comfort. The father rises earlier in the morn- 
ing than formerly, works later at night, and goes Avitli worn-out, 
ragged, or patched-up clothes, in order that his eldest boy may 
get a new suit, so as to make as respectable an appearance as any 
lad at the Lincoln School. 

The mother, too, in worn-out and tattered apparel, plies her 
washboard with unwonted vigor in order to get money to pay 
the dressmaker for fitting, cutting and making Lizzie's nice new 
dress, for the teacher says she must not come to school looking 
like an old washerwoman's girl. The daughter, too, is learning 
to play upon the piano, and of course it will not do for her to 
lend a helping hand towards washing either clothes or dishes, 
for the teacher says it will spoil the shape of her fingers and im- 
pair the delicacy of her sense of touch. Thus both father and 
mother work harder than slaves, and dress coarser than beggars, 
in order that their children may enjoy the great advantages of 
our glorious free school system of education. 



26 The Poison Fountain, or 

In the meantime these childreu are sitting in the same 
classes, studying the same books, wearing the same costlj fab- 
rics, participating in the same amusements, contracting the 
same habits, imbibing the same love of ease, and the same aver- 
sion to manual labor, and the same contempt for mauiial labor- 
ers, as do their far more wealthy and aristocratic schoolfellows. 

Leaving out of sight the five younger children, we shall now 
give our undivided attention to the eldest sou of this poor la- 
borer. 

After years of study he at length completes his course at the 
Lincoln High School, acquitting himself with great honor, 
amidst the cordial congratulations of professors and school di- 
rectors, and eliciting the vociferous applause of the admiring 
multitude. We may imagine we see his poor old father crouch- 
ing on the outskirts of the crowd, feasting his eyes upon an oc- 
casional glimpse of his boy, but not daring to approach him be- 
cause he has no clothes fit to be seen on such an occasion; 
doubtless that father is picturing to himself a brilliant future 
for his boy. He is, perhaps, looking forward to the time when 
he shall be a governor, a senator, or possibly President of the 
United States. Very likely, too, he fancies that in his declin- 
ing years he shall be able to look to his son for that assistance 
and support which his own exhausted means may then refuse to 
afford him. But alas! how baseless are all these castles in the 
air. The day after quitting school the young man finds himself 
for once thrown on his own unaided resources. His father says 
to him: "Well, my boy, I have been a long time struggling 
with poverty and want in order that you might become edu- 
cated. You see that both your mother and I are in rags, and 
that handsome suit which you now wear is yet to be paid for. 
You now have a fortune in your education, and hereafter you 
must learn to shift for yourself and, if possible, lend a helping 
hand from time to time to the support of your younger broth- 
ers and sisters. 

Thus situated, the young man probably for the first time in 
his whole life, asks himself seriously the question, what busi- 
ness is he going to follow ? A more appropriate question 
would be, what business can he follow ? There he stands in 
the midst of a great bustling city, without a cent of money at 
his command; without friends, without occupation, and without 
the necessary qualifications for any earthly employment within 



Anti-Pakental Education. 27 

his reacli. Probably liis j&rst effort will be to find a position as 
clerk in some bank or other business establishment; but he 
soon learns that these positions are all filled bj the sons of 
wealthy or influential parents. Occasionally he meets a former 
schoolmate, discharging the duties of some coveted place, but 
on inquiry, he learns that he has obtained his position at the 
instance of a wealthy father or an influential friend. Failing 
in everything else, he at length seeks for copying as a means of 
earning bread. He gets hold of a city directory and makes a 
list of the names and locations of all the law ofiices in the city. 
He then goes from office to office in quest of the only Avork he 
really knows how to do. But everywhere he is forestalled; 
everywhere he is doomed to disappointment. On every hand 
he meets young men and boys similarly situated, and making 
similar fruitless efi'orts to raise a few dimes with which to stave 
off starvation. Already the boy has spent weeks in an earnest 
but vain endeavor to find work as a copyist. In the meantime 
he has been living partly on his old father, and partly on what 
he could pick up at the free-lunch tables. Seeing the son's ex- 
treme embarrassment, the father perhaps suggests to him that 
inasmuch as he has been disappointed in everything else, he 
had better come and help him lay down those cobble-stones on 
Battery street, where he can at least earn money enough to buy 
victuals and clothes. But, alas ! his hands are wholly unused 
to toil, and what is infinitely worse, he has been, as we before 
said, so trained up as to despise both manual labor and manual 
laborers. He would be ashamed for one of his school compan- 
ions to even meet him walking the street in company with his own, 
father, because of the old man's horn-like palms, and his laborer's 
dress, so that even if he knew how to work, still in view of the 
fact that it was only the other day that he finished his educa- 
tional course with so much eclat and amidst such a shower of 
bouquets as rained around him from the fair hands of San Fran- 
cisco's wealth and beauty, is it to be expected that he is now 
going to heave cobble-stones on a public street here under the 
very shadow of his alma mater; to be twitted and jeered at by 
those who envied him the literary honors with Avliich he came 
loaded from the Lincoln school? No, no; that is utterly impos- 
sible; propose anything but that. Yet, says he, something 
must be done, and that soon; I must have clothes, and I must 
have bread; the world owes me a living, and I intend to have it. 



28 The Poison Fountain, or 

Thus saying, he turns his back upon his humble and destitute 
home, and betakes himself again to perambulating the streets, 
ready for any desperate turn in events that promises him 
money. 

Let the reader pause here, and ask himself the question, what, 
is there to save this youth from becoming a pest to society, a 
disgrace to his old father and mother, and finally a convicted 
felon, doomed to serve the State within penitentiary walls ? 
Perhaps it will be claimed that the bare recollection of his 
newly acquired literary honors and the fear of losing the esteem 
of those who, the other day, so vociferously applauded his 
youthful oratory and threw at his feet such a profusion of flowers, 
ought of itself to be sufficient to shield him from temptation's 
harm. But unfortunately, those withered flowers will not serve 
for food, nor can he make clothes either of approving smiles or 
shouts of applause. But can it be possible, you say, that one 
so young, so intelligent and so Avell educated has no respect for 
the law ? Why, sir, if you talk to him about respecting the 
law, he will laugh you to scorn. Who is it that respects the 
law, lie will say, except just so far as the law subserves his pur- 
poses ? Have we not laws against bribery ? and yet do not even 
our law-makers, on election days, send out their dirty minions 
with money in their pockets with which to buy their way into 
the very halls of legislation ? Are not seats in the United States 
Senate sometimes bought with gold? And does not the Presi- 
dent of the United States himself at this very moment hold his 
high office by virtue of a false and forged certificate of election? 
Then why prate to me about the sanctity of the law, when the 
very men who make the laws trample them unceremoniously un- 
der their feet whenever it suits their purposes. But, you will 
say, if this youth has no regard for human laws, surely he can- 
not be wholly indifferent to the laws of God. Be not so fast, 
my dear sir. Have you forgotten that the boy was educated in 
our public schools, Avhere it is a criminal offense, punishable by 
a forfeiture of all interest in the public school moneys, to even 
mention the subject of religion in the hearing of a pupil. And do 
you know that there is no such prohibition against inculcating 
the horrible doctrines of atheism in these schools? That many 
of our public school teachers are avowed atheists, who believe 
neither in God nor Devil; neither in Hell nor Heaven, and that 
our young hero is a firm believer in these dismal and diabolical 



Anti-Paeental Education. 29 

doctrines'? Yery tiue, you say; I knew veiy well that no re- 
ligion was allowed to be taught in the public schools, but then 
why did not his father and mother teach him religion at home ? 

We first answer the question by asking another, and it is 
this : How do you know that his parents themselves had any 
well defined notions of religion? Or in fact any religion at all ? 
If they had firmly believed in the teachings even of that natural 
religion which an almighty hand has written in indelible char- 
acters on every human heart, they surely would never have con- 
sented to surrender to the public at large the right to select the 
teachers, and in all essential particulars to shape the mental 
and moral as well as the physical destines of their child. 

But suppose that his parents were in every other particular 
real models of perfection, both in their professions and in 
their practices of religion, was it to be expected that he, their 
son, would accept religious instruction from them ? Are not 
they illiterate, and is not he educated? And shall wisdom take 
lessons from ignorance ? Has he not learned to despise them 
both for their poverty and their simplicity? Can it be doubted 
that even the sacrifices which they made in his behalf; that the 
very patches with which they mended their old garments, in 
order that he might be handsomely dressed; that the very toils 
and hardships which have wrinkled their brows, soiled their 
features, and imparted the bony touch to their palms in order 
that he might learn to lead a life of ease, awd freedom from 
manual labor, are, on his part, requited with coldness and 
contempt? And after learning to despise his parents, is it 
at all likely that he would profit either by their religious in- 
struction or their praiseworthy example? No, no, their religion, 
just like their toilsome lives, and their old clothes, may be 
good enough for them, but to an educated young man like him- 
self it is only a bundle of cumbersome and useless rubbish, 
and he will have none of it. 

Then, since our young hero^ has learned to respect neither the 
laws of man, nor the laws of God, and will neither be directed 
by the good counsels, nor influenced by the exemplary lives of 
his own father and mother; where, let it be asked, shall we look 
for the controlling power that is to shape his future destinies? 
Just follow him, as he hurries along yonder busj- street, and 
you shall see. Already he is in compan}^ with half a dozen of 
his late school-mates, each of whom has a tale of woe and dis- 



30 The Poison Fountain, or 

appointment to tell, quite like bis own. Now, for the first time 
since leaving school, each and all of these boys find themselves 
in congenial society. They feel that the world cares nothing 
for them, and they care nothing for the world. They all have 
empty stomachs and seedy clothes, and there is not money 
enough in the crowd to purchase even one night's lodging, at 
the meanest lodging-house in the city. 

One of the party suggests that, having failed in everything 
else, he has an idea of making an effort to get a position as 
dish-washer in some hotel, or failing in that also, he might seek 
employment as stable-boy, to clean out the stalls of some livery 
stable. The majority of his companions, however, frown down 
the proposition with contemptuous indignation, and our hero 
threatens never hereafter to speak to the low-bred rascal, should 
he ever again be guilty of advancing a proposition so far beneath 
the dignity of an educated gentleman. In order, however, to 
put at rest the question as to the feasibility of finding even that 
kind of employment, one little fellow, the smallest in the 
crowd, puts in a word to assure his companions that there is 
not enough in the last suggestion to be worth quarreling about. 
He says he has been, for the past three days and a good part 
of the nights, hunting from house to house, both in public ho- 
tels and private dwellings, for any kind of light work, such as 
boys could do, and everywhere he has foundj the field already 
occupied, most always by Chinamen; whereupon they all agree 
that they could not if they would, and would not if they could, 
enter into successful competition with Chinamen, for the honor 
of discharging the menial duties of kitchen servants. 

At this particular juncture one of the party suggests that his 
old widowed aunt has 1500 in gold twenties, buried under her 
barn floor; and that he knows just where to find the cash. They 
can get this money and nobody but themselves need be any the 
wiser for it. He says she has plenty without that, and she is 
such a stingy old hag that it woijld be serving her just right 
for them to go and relieve her of that five hundred. We do 
not propose to follow this little band of young hoodlums far- 
ther, for the present, but if any friend of our present public 
school system can discover any motive which will deter from 
crime and preserve from the penitentiary any one of the hun- 
dreds upon hundreds of our city's youths, Avhose education and 
situation in life differ in no essential particular from that of 



Anti-Paeental Education. 31 

the boys just above described, he will, by pointing out such 
motive unquestionably confer a great and lasting benefit both 
on the rising generation and on society at large. From the 
fate of this eldest boy of our poor laborer we shall leave the 
reader to guess the doom which awaits his younger brothers 
and sisters. 



PART SECOND. 



PREFACE TO PART SECOND. 



It is now about seventeen j^ears since the writer of these 
pages, ill order to carry out the wishes of some fourteen thou- 
sand petitioners, introduced into the legishiture of the State 
of California a bill for the purpose of radically modifying and 
reforming our public school sj'stem. As was anticipated at the 
time, the bill failed to pass; but enough was said and done on 
the occasion in connection with the subject of the bill, to bring 
down on the head of its introducer the merciless misrepresen- 
tations, unmitigated abuse and bitter maledictions of thousands 
of people, who had never seen the bill, and had only tho most 
distorted and erroneous notions as to what its provisions were. 
It was said to be a Catholic bill, and yet nobody could point 
out that part of the bill which proposed to grant any more 
privileges to Catholics than to Mormons or Millerites. It was 
said to be a sectarian bill, yet nobody could tell from the bill 
which was the favored sect. During the same term of the leg- 
islature at Avhich this bill was introduced, the late civil war was 
inaugurated, and that, of course, threw tho school question far 
into the shade. At the ensuing session of the legislature, an 
act was passed, requiring attorneys-at-law in this State to take 
what was known as the "attorney's test-oath." The writer being 
a strict believer in the Jeffersouian doctrine of States rights, 
refused to take this oath, and shortly after he quit the practice 
of law and established the Occldenlal newspaper, chiefly Avith a 
view to fighting the school question. While conducting this 
paper he was drawn into a number of discussions, through the 
press and otherwise, Avith many of the leading advocates of our 
existing anti-parental public school system. 

These discussions, wherein both sides of the question are 
represented, together with the chief points of the debate which 
took place in the legislature in 1861 on the subject of the 
school bill above referred to, constitute the principal portion of 



P>(> Preface to Paut Second. 

part second of this book. These discussions present the earlier 
views of the writei-, which, thougli considered at the time ex- 
tremely radical in their opposition to the leading features of 
the New England public school system, were, nevertheless, not 
quite so radical as are his more recent and better matured opin- 
ions, as expressed in Part First of this book. Although these 
discussions have by no means exhausted the subject, yet we 
humbly hope that they may, to some extent, be instrumen- 
tal in awakening parents and politicians to a sense of the great 
danger to be apprehended, both to the family and the State, 
from a system of education, which, in defying the laws of nature 
and nature's God, thereby logically and necessarily sanctions 
disobedience to all law. 



PART SECOND. 



CHAPTER V. 

THOUGHTS ON GOVERNMENT — THE PRINCIPLES OF GOVERNMENT AND 
THEIR APPLICATION TO THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 

We hold it to be a first principle of self-government, that 
every individual as well as every society or association of per- 
sons, Avhether composed of few or many, has a right to make 
and enforce such rules and regulations as appertain to its own 
social and domestic policy, Avithout let or hindrance from the 
balance of the world, so long as these rules and regulations do 
not in their operation conflict either with the rights of others 
or with the natural law. 

For example, to begin with the individual. We maintain 
that every sane man has the right to fix his own hours as well 
for retiring to rest as for rising in the morning; he has a 
right to determine for himself the kind and quality of his food, 
bis drink, and his apparel; ho has a right to select for himself 
the wife who is to be the mother of his children, and who is 
destined to share Avith him through life in his joys and his sor- 
rows. Yea, we go so far as to maintain, notwithstanding the 
Connecticut blue laws to the contrary, that a man has a right 
to kiss his own wife, even on a Sunday, if he chooses so to do. 

Passing from the individual to society, we find that the first 
and oldest society ever established upon earth, was what may 
be termed the family society — a society composed, when com- 
plete in all its parts, of father, mother and children. Of this 
society, the father and mother are the legitimate law-givers; to 
them belongs therightto prescribe the rules and regulations for 
the family government, without interference on the part either 
of city ordhiances. State legislation, or federal enactments. 

So, likewise, every city, county, State and nation, is entitled 
to, and should be left in the free exercise of its own best judg- 



•38 Thoughts on Government. 

ment and discretion in making tlioso rules and regulations de- 
signed solely for its own domestic policy and government. 
Let this principle be denied, and the whole theory of self- 
government falls to the ground. 

The principle here asserted is founded both in reason and 
justice. It is founded iu reason, because no one is supposed 
to know so well whether a certain law is adapted to the condi- 
tion and necessities of a given society as those who are them- 
selves members of that society. For example, tho miners of 
California understand much better what kind of laws are nec- 
essary for the protection of their rights and interests than do 
either the factory men of Massachusetts, or the rice-growers of 
South Carolina. So likewise do the citizens of Loxiisiana com- 
prehend far better than the inhabitant of Maine or New Hamp- 
shire the intelligence, disposition and capacity of the freed 
negroes by whom they are surrounded, and with whom they 
are brought iu daily contact. It follows, as a consequence of 
this superior comprehension of the qualities and capacities of 
the negro, that they are in a far better condition to legislate 
concerning him than the man whoso knowledge of the subject 
rests solely upon speculation, or at best mere secondary evi- 
dence. But as we have said, this principle of self-government 
is no less just than reasonable. What can be more tyrannical 
than to compel a community of persons to submit to laws re- 
garded by them as oppressive, and at the same time deprive 
them of all power to remedy the evil, and that, too, when tho 
remedy they propose could only affect themselves? Can any- 
thing be more cruelly unjust than for cither a community or an 
association of communities to impose oppressive laws upon 
others, while they themselves are not only free from tho injuri- 
ous operation of these laws, but are perhaps gratifying a malev- 
olent feeling, or else reaping profit therefrom. "Wo maintain, 
then, that the invasion of, or interference with this right, 
which every community, whether great or small, possesses of 
ordering and regulating its own domestic affairs, should be re- 
garded and treated as an act of tyranny. This, we contend, is 
equally true whether the community thus interfered with holds 
the position of an independent State, or whether it forms but 
a subdivision of the very community or State by which its 
rights are invaded. So far as the establishment of its own , 
domestic rules and discipline is concerned, every society 



Thoughts on Government. 39 

stands, or should stand, iil the relation of a foreign government 
to all the rest of the world. 

These principles lie at the foundation and constitute the very 
corner-stone of both civil and religious liberty. They are alike 
applicable to a village debating society, and to an ocean-bound 
republic. Observing these principles, no nation has ever been 
enslaved, nor has any long submitted to their violation without 
a loss of liberty. 

So far we have spoken of the principle of self-government in 
its general application to all classes of human associations, be- 
ginning with the family and ending with the State. We shall 
now return to the point where wo started, and consider more at 
length the importance of this principle in its application to the 
family government. It is to the family that we must look for 
the source, the great fountain-head of all human societies. All 
the nations of the earth, past as well as present, with their 
myriads upon myriads of civilians and soldiers, their men, 
women and children, of all ages, complexions and conditions, 
owe their origin, their growth and their power to this one 
original source. Let this source be dried up, and the great 
stream of human society will cease to flow; let it be polluted, 
and that stream will of necessity partake of the defilement. 

Those who havo been entrusted with the reins of family gov- 
ernment have a dutj- to perform more binding than any imposed 
by human laws. The King or the President may resign his 
position, and throw the burden of his government on the 
shoulders of others; but not so with the father and mother of 
a family. They can nevei', without playing the part of most un- 
natural monsters, resign into other hands that paramount 
authority which they hold over their own children. 

The laws which are laid down for the government of the 
family society not only boast a greater antiquity, but they 
claim a far higher authority, and stand upon an infinitely more 
enduring basis than any that ever emanated from tho legislation 
of man. Their antiquity dates from the morning of creation; 
their authority rests upon the positive command of God Al- 
mighty; and their stability is as enduring as eternity itself. All 
human laws are subject to modification or repeal. Tho laws of 
nations may vary according to times, circumstances, and the 
demands of international commerce. The laws of Great Brit- 
ain, France, or Spain are liable to be modified or repealed, and 



40 Thoughts on Government. 

even their entire form of government changed. The constitn- 
tion of the United States, and the constitutions and laws of the 
several States may all be altered or abolished by the States or 
people who breathed them into being, but the law which com- 
mands the husband to love and protect the wife; the wife to 
yield both affection and obedience to the husband; the parents 
to feed, clothe, and educate the child, and the child to love, 
honor, and obey its parents, derives its authority from no hu- 
man. legislation, and can never be annulled or rej)ealed by any 
power short of Omnipotence itself. Honor thy father and thy 
mother is a law as binding to-day as when first proclaimed in 
thunder-tones from the blazing heights of Sinai. 

And who is so blind as not to recognize a visible display of 
the wisdom and goodness of the Almighty in thus guarding, 
protecting, and hedging in, as it were, by irrepealable laws of 
His own divine authorship, the family government — that great 
fountain-head whence, as we have seen, all other governments 
take their rise? 

It is our intention to discuss in future articles more in extenso 
the nature and character of these laws, particularly those which, 
relate to the education and government of tho child. Wo shall 
steadily maintain, and still further demonstrate that the New 
England common school system in its present shape, both here 
and elsewhere, is directly at war with the principles above 
enunciated; and that it has done, and is now doing, far more 
to demoralize and corrupt the hearts than to enlighten the 
minds of our youth. It has set at defiance parental authority, 
introduced discord and strife into the domestic circle, turned 
happy homes into earthly hells; and, after having virtually de- 
stroyed the family government, it has sent its deadly virus into 
the veins, arteries, and very heart's blood of every department 
of our Federal, State, and municipal governments; everywhere 
rankling, festering and breaking out, in the shape of dishonesty, 
frauds, perjuries, defalcations, and the most gigantic, bare- 
faced and hitherto unheard-of robberies, perpetrated with im- 
punity, not only upon the public moneys, but upon the dearest 
rights and liberties of the people.* 

*Oecidcntal, April 15, 1865. 



Parental Love and Education. 41 

CHAPTER VI. 

PATIENTAL LOVE AND EDUCATION. * 

All nature, Listorj and the Bible abound with the most in- 
contestable proofs of the high, the holy and the divine origin of 
parental affection. Indeed, it may be termed the great vital 
and indispensable principle whereby animated nature propa- 
gates itself. Without parental uffectiou, the fowls of the air 
would neither hatch their eggs nor gather food for their j'^oung. 
Without it, the lioness Avould leave her whelps to perish by the 
jaws of the first carniverous beast that might pass along, or 
perhaps would herself devour them for food. Deprive the most 
doting of human mothers of parental affection, and, unless re- 
strained by the law of conscience, she would not hesitate to im- 
brue her hands in the innocent blood of her own sweet babe. 

Some of the most beautiful, eloquent and soul-inspiring pas- 
sages to be found either in history, poetry or revelation, are il- 
lustrative of the sublime power of parental love and affection. 
When the mother of the Gracchi was asked where were her jew- 
els, that noble old Roman matron proudly pointed to her sons. 
It is also a noteworthy fact, recorded by the historian, when 
speaking of the education of these sons of Cornelia, that, "un- 
der her maternal guidance, aided by the best Greek masters, 
they soon surpassed in accomplishments- all the Roman youths 
of the time." 

In the language of the gifted James Montgomery, the poet: — 

"A mother's love — how sweet the name ! 

What is a mother's love ? 
A noble, pure and tender flame 

Enkindled from above 
To bless a heart of earthy mold 

The warmest love that can grow cold, 

T::x -s a mother's love." 

Such is the love which the parental heart feels toward the 
offspring, where this natural instinct has not been grossly per- 
verted by some unnatural system of training, that no more 
deadly blow can be aimed at the happiness of the parent, than 
that which falls upon the head of the child. For example: 
When the brethren of Joseph brought to their father one of 
Joseph'u garments dipped in the blood of a goat, pretending 
that their brother had been devoiired by wild beasts, the father. 



42 Parental Love and Education. 

believing that his child was dead, would not be comforted, but 
declared that he would die mourning for his son. He looked 
upon life as no longer desirable, now that beastly violence had 
robbed him of his boy. 

"When the Almighty chose to put to the severest test the faith 
and obedience of Abraham, He did not ask him to surrender 
his vast landed possessions, nor his countless herds of sheep 
and cattle, neither did He ask at his hands gold or silver, or 
any oilier species of accumulated material wealth; but he de- 
manded a sacrifice of that which Ho knew Abraham prized 
higher than all the wealth of the universe. "Take thy only 
begotten son, Isaac, whom thou lovest, and go into the land of 
vision, and there thou shall; offer him for a holocaust." 

"When the patience and fidelity of Job were being subjected 
to the most terrible ordeal, he sat in silence while three suc- 
cessive messengers reported the driving away of his asses and 
his camels, the slaying of his servants, and the consuming by 
fire from heaven of his sheep and shepherds; but when the 
fourth messenger came in, announcing the death of his chil- 
dren from the falling of the house in Avhicli they were feasting, 
then it was that the man of patience and unparalleled fortitude 
rose up, rent his garments, shaved his head and fell upon the 
ground. 

Perhaps the most notable instance of parental affection 
to be found recorded in either sacred or profane history, is. 
that related of tho great King David, the man after God's own 
heart. Notwithstanding that his wicked and rebellious son 
Absalom had violated the sanctity of his marriage-bed, and 
that ill the most public and disgraceful manner, and had raised 
and marshalled mighty armies, Avitli a view to taking his father's 
life, and usurping his kingly ofiice; yet, when King David re- 
ceived the news of his son's death, forgetting, in tho paroxysm 
of a father's anguish, ail tho wrongs of his dead child, he burst 
into a flood of tears, exclaiming: "Absalom, Absalom, my son; 
who would grant me that I might die for thee. Absalom, my 
son, my son, Absalom." Thus it appears that not only did 
King David still love his reprobate sou, in spite of all tho 
wrongs he had perpetrated against him, but he loved him to a 
degree which made him desirous of giving his life for him. 

Parental love appears more deeply and indelibly written 
upon the human soul than almost any other of nature's laws, 



Parental Love and Education, 43 

and consequently, when every mark of divinity besides seema 
obliterated from the heart, or wholly begrimed with crime, the 
voice of parental affection still asserts its sway. Like Napo- 
leon's drummer boy, beating his own funeral dirge, while 
being buried beneath the plunging avalanche of the Alps, so 
does parental love sing its own requiem, with fainter and 
fainter note, as the guilty soul sinks deeper and deeper into 
the whirling vortex of crime. It is only when utterly lost in 
the abyss of iniquity, and when the last vestige of the Al- 
mighty's imitgo seems blotted from the human soul, that the 
parent forgets entirely to love his child. Even the hardened 
heart of the wicked Pharaoh, in his guiltiest hour, never ceased 
to pulsate under the influence of this heaven-inspired emotion. 
That remorseless tyrant stood unmoved amidst some of the 
most appalling and miraculous visitations of Divine Providence. 
Ho saw the waters of Egypt turned into blood; the land over- 
run with toads in such numbers that they filled the houses, the 
beds and the food ; he saw the air impregnated with every species 
of loathsome insects, and the very dust of the earth turned to 
sciniphs; ho beheld the cattle stricken down with murrain — 
men and animals and growing crops rent and torn with hail and 
scorched with sheets of flame; ho saw the last green thing de- 
voured by armies of locusts, and tho entire kingdom covered 
with three days' tangible darkness; but, strange to say, this ac- 
cumulation of calamities softened not the heart of that wicked 
prince. " Yet one plague more," said the Almight}^, speaking 
to Moses — " Yet one plague more will I bring upon Pharoah 
and Egypt, and after that he shall let you go and thrust you 
out." But what Avas this one plague more — this choicest of 
heaven's bolts — which, in tho language of inspiration, Avas to 
cause "a great cry in all the land of Egypt, such as neither hath 
been before nor shall there bo hereafter." 

That one plaguo more, that eleventh catastrophe which was 
to be tho climax of Egypt's woes, and to wring from the cruel 
and ten times hai'dened heart of the despot his unconditional as- 
sent to the departure of the Israelites, was nothing more nor less 
than an omnipotent touch upon that tender chord of the human 
heart Avhich wo call parental love. Every first-born child 
of Egypt, from that of Pharaoh, who sat on his throne, unto 
the first-born of the captive woman that was in the prison, was 
to be struck dead by the destroying angel. This it was that 



44 Parental Love and Education. 

filled the land with mourning, broke the tyrant's grasp and 
snapped asunder the chains which for ages had held in bondage 
the chosen people of God. 

Parental love, when rightly directed and properly regulated, 
looks more to the intellectual and moral excellence than to the 
mere material welfare of the child. Virginius much preferred 
to see his virgin daughter a lifeless corpse afc his feet rather than 
have her live the polluted mistress of a Roman governor. So 
with the mother of the Machabees. Dearly as she loved the 
lives of her- seven sons, she preferred to see them, one after an- 
other, roasted in heated caldrons, their tongues cut from their 
mouths, the skin torn from their heads, and, one by one, the 
limbs wrenched from their mangled bodies rather than see them 
prove recreant to the voice of conscience. 

Here we have the very highest exhibition of the most exalted 
character of parental love; a love which lifts the child from 
the impure and feted atmosphere of time, far up into the bright 
and cloudless realms of eternity, sending back to God without 
spot or blemish the pure spirit whose custody and training he 
had for a time entrusted to earthly parents. 

The foregoing are a few among millions of examples illus- 
trating the workings of that noble and God-like sentiment 
called parental affection, which an infinitely wise, infinitely 
merciful and infinitely powerful creator has chosen to implant 
in the hearts of those to whom he has committed the care and 
education of children. Because he desired the fishes to swim, 
he gave them fins; because he desired the birds to fly, he gave 
them wings; and because he desired and commanded that 
parents should feed, and clothe, and train up their children in 
the way that they srhould go, he gave them parental love. 

We hesitate not to assert that the man who loves not a child 
Avith a parental love can no more perform, in all their com- 
pleteness, the duties of the parental office than a bird can fly 
without wings, or a fish swim without the organs that appertain 
to a fish. Who then can measure the folly of that parent — to 
call it by no harsher name — who will voluntarily surrender the 
paramount custody of his child into the hands of a soulless 
corporation, to be instructed by teachers not of his own choice; 
teachers whom he never saw; of whose mental and moral 
capacity he knows absolutely nothing, and whose selection 



Parental Love and Education. 45 

depends upon the fickle results of a political election, where 
bribery and bad whisky are often far more potent than the 
votes of honest men.* 



^Occidental, October 29, 1866. 



46 Duty of Parents. 

CHAPTER VII. 

DUTY OF PARENTS IN THE MATTER OF EDUCATION. 

If we cast our eyes abroad into fields of animated nature, we 
shall find that the Almighty has imposed upon every living 
creature the duty of protecting, nurturing and training up its 
young. Thus all the birds of the air, from the little swallow 
that builds its nest beneath the cottage roof to the stalwart 
eagle that inhabits the overhanging cliffs of the mountain, in- 
obedience to the dictates of nature, supply with food, and watch 
with sleepless vigilance their helpless fledglings, until, with full 
grown plumage, they can safely venture upon their airy path. 
It is by the parental guardian that the timid fawn is first taught 
to dread the smell of gunpowder, and to flee at the hunter's 
approach. The Almighty, as if to take a bond of the parent 
for the faithful performance of this duty, has stamped, not 
alone upon the heart of man, but upon the nature of every liv- 
ing creature, a most lively and unconquerable afiection for its 
young; an affection which, in presence of danger to its offspring, 
inspires with courage the most timid of animals. 

Now, we maintain that as far as man surpasses the mere 
brute in the scale of creation, jast so far does the obligation 
which rests upon him of supporting and protecting his children 
surpass in degree the corresponding obligatioif which is im- 
posed upon the beasts of the field. But if the parent is bound 
by nature to feed and clothe the body, how much more binding 
upon him is that other duty, of supplying with the food of 
wholesome knowledge and clothing with the shining garments 
of virtue the mind of his child? that immortal mind which shall 
live on when the last pulsation of animal life shall have ebbed 
away, and when the blazing sun shall have been blotted from 
the firmament; that mind whose father is God, whose home is 
heaven, and the measui-e of whose existence is eternity. The 
voice of revelation, no less than the voice of nature, proclaims 
it the duty of the parent to educate the children. 

"Children, hear the judgment of your father:" Ecclesiastes, 
chap. Ill, verse 2. The command does not read, "Children, 
hear ye the judgment of the President," nor " the judgment of 
Congress," nor "the judgment of the Legislature," nor even 
"the judgment of the San Francisco Board of Education," but 
the injunction i«: "Children, hear iho judgment ol'vonr fathor." 



Duty of Parents. 47 

Thus it is clear, both from the voice of nature and of revela- 
tion, that to the parent belongs the right and the duty of edu- 
cating his children ; and we iusist, as a necessary consequence, 
that since to the parent alone belongs that right and that duty, 
be alone can justly delegate that right and duty to another; for 
it certainly requires no argument to prove that neither an in- 
dividual nor a body politic can delegate a right or an authority 
which that individual or that body politic does not possess. 
Not onl}- do Ave hold that it belongs as a right to the parent to 
say who hLuII be substituted for himself as the teacher of his 
child, but we maintain that this is an inalienable right — a right 
so identified Avith his very natnre, that he can no more divest 
himself of it than he can divest himself of his personal identity. 
"We contend, further, as a consequence, that it is to the parents 
that the teacher should be held responsible for the manner in 
which he discharges this important trust; for the moment the 
teacher ceases to stand responsible to the parent, that moment 
does the parent lose the control over the education of his child. 
And, Avhere, let us inquire, can the power to control the child's 
education be so safely lodged as in the hands of the parent? 
Whose happiness or misery depends so much upon the good 
or bad training of a child, as the hajipiness or misery of the 
parent? If by the negligence, or it may be through the profli- 
gacy, of the teacher a lovely daughter is to be dishonored, des- 
poiled of her virtue, and ruined for time and eternit}^ upon 
whose head will the blighting curse of her disgrace fall with 
such crushing weight as upon the head of a heart-broken 
parent ? 

We would appeal to 3'ou who are the head of a family to 
think for one moment of the miserable profligate who stands at 
the street corners, gazing with lustful ayes upon your 3'oung 
and spotless daughter as she glides along the busy thorough- 
fare, perhaps to school, perhaps to church. He is exhausting 
his fiendish ingenuity in devising waj-s and means Avhereby to 
ensnare and ruin j'our child; to rob her of her innocence; to 
deprive her of that which makes her a fit companion for angels, 
and Avithout Avhich she Avould sink beloAV the level of the brute. 

Having duly considered this spectacle — Avliich is not a mere 
imaginary one — then ask yourself the question : Is it possible 
that this degraded wretch, this fiend in human shape, Avhose 
very l)reath breeds moral pestilence, and from Avhnso cini!;-:.:- 



48 Duty op Parents. 

inating touch the very swine would recoil with loathing and dis- 
gust : Is it possible that this monster of debauchery, who 
seeks his happiness in the ruin of my child, is entitled by law 
to share equally with me, her father, in determining who shall 
be her teacher, and the guardian of her virtue? Yes, good 
reader, startling as it may appear, it is even so. Under our 
boasted common school system as it is by law established, the 
most intelligent and virtuous father in the city of San Fran- 
cisco, or elsewhere in the State of California, has no more voice 
in selecting a teacher for his child, than has the most abandoned 
debauchee, whose polluting presence would contaminate even 
the lowest class brothel. 

But suppose the father dead; in that case, this already mon- 
strous picture assumes still more frightful features; for the sur- 
viving mother, Avho, by every law of God and humanity, stands 
as the sole guardian of her child, is denied even an indirect 
voice in selecting for that child a teacher. Every gambler and 
drunkard, every chain-gang convict, and every profligate in the 
land, is deemed by law perfectly competent to the task of select- 
ing for lier daughter a suitable instructor, while the mother has 
nothing to do but pay her taxes, and humbly abide by their de- 
cision. 

True, it was the mother vrho brought that child into exist- 
ence, and who has shielded her from a thousand perils during 
the period of tender infancy; true, it was she who, when all the 
world besides were taking their accustomed sleep, watched with 
tearful eyes by the sick couch of that infant daughter; true, it 
was she who has toiled and still toils, by day and by night, in 
order to supply that daughter with food and raiment; true, if 
that daughter, whom she adores, and upon whom are centered 
all her hopes and fears for earthly happiness or misery, should, 
through the agency or neglect of a bad teacher, lose her inno- 
cence and be brought to shame, it is she who would reel be- 
neath the terrible blow, it is her heart that would break with 
grief, and upon her head would a cold and unfeeling world cast 
the blame; and yet that mother, who must suffer the whole 
penalty, not only stands guiltless, but is even denied the means 
of preventing the crime. Yes, the mother must remain silent, 
while the would-be seducer has a voice, and it may be, the cast- 
ing voice, in selecting for her daughter a teacher. 

And, horror of horrors! it is not to the mother, but to this 



Duty of Parents. 49 

infamous libertine, who is plotting the ruin of her child, that 
the teacher must in part, at least, stand responsible for the 
manner in which he discharges his duty toward that child.* 



'Occidental, October 29, 1864. 



50 The Bible in the Schools. 

CHAPTEE VIII. 

THE BIBLE IN THE COMMON SCHOOLS. 

The following extract is from the American tlag of the IDth 
of November, 1864, begiuning with this caption: 

''The Jewish 'Gleaner' on Beading the Scriptures in our 

Public Schools. 

"The Board of Education, at its last sitting, determined, by 
an amendment of the manual which rules the department of pub- 
lic instruction, that henceforth, in all of our schools, the Ameri- 
can and purely Christian custom of reading the Bible in them 
shall be observed. This custom, for some peculiar and evi- 
dently potent reason, has been neglected in this city, but recent 
and terrible developments of vice and crime in the schools and 
the full knowledge of every one connected with them that the 
most rigid discipline, unaccompanied by the sanctions of re- 
ligion, did not serve to check the prevalence of immoral prac- 
tices, demonstrated and urged the absolute necessity for intro- 
duciiig the reading of that common book of all Christian nations 
and societies — the Bible. In doing so, the Board of Education 
has acted upon the authority of all experience — that mere intel- 
lectual culture forms but a weak barrier against the attacks of 
vice \ipon the human heart, and nothing receives the blessing of 
God which abjures the authority of liis law and abandons the 
light and guidance of Christian teachings and example. Our 
people no longer prefer that no attention shall be paid in the 
public schools to those things which they consider to be 
the chief supports of our American social system, as they 
are the foundations of every enlightsned and Christian institu- 
tion in the world; and therefore, through their representatives, 
the members of the Board of Education, they have announced 
their desire to have the Bible read and studied in our schools. 
No good citizen finds himself in a condition to oppose this, but 
it by no means follows that it receives no opposition. The 
Gleaner of yesterday publishes what is not only new but insult- 
ing. It says that it is a dangerous enterprise to read the Script- 
ures in an" American school. What the danger is does not 
clearly appear; possibly precedents drawn from the life and ex- 
perience of Christ would reveal it, and we cannot expect that 
the lineal descendant of men who crucified him will hesitate 
now to denounce, and, if possible, proscribe his religion." 

With us it is a fundamental maxim that no parent, whether 
Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Pagan, should be required to sus- 
tain by his money a system of education which he cannot, with- 
out a violation of his conscience, permit his children to enjoy. 



The Bible in the Schools. 51 

This principle seems so clearly just that it is difficult to under- 
stand how any one, not blinded by the most intolerant bigotry, 
can object to its enforcement. How, then, does the above 
amendment to the school manual square Avith this principle. 

It is not our present purpose to discuss the question as to 
whether the Bible is or is not a proper book for the religious 
instruction of children. What we contend for is, that it does 
not belong to the board of education, but to the parents of each 
individual child, aided by the best lights within his reach, to 
determine that question, so far as his own children are con- 
cerned. In other words, Ave do not object to the teaching of 
the Bible to children, but we do object to the teaching of the 
Bible to children against the will of their parents. Is it not 
plain that the very same principle which would justify the board 
of education in forcing the child of unwilling parents to study 
the Bible would also justify that board in forcing the same child 
to study the Connecticut blue laws ? The exercise of such a 
power by any political body we can but regard as a most start- 
ling encroachment upon the rights of conscience. We main- 
tain that it is as much a violation of the liberty of conscience 
to compel a citizen, against his Avill, to embrace Christianity, 
as it Avould be to compel him to embrace Judaism or Paganism, 
and if a board of education, to-day, composed, it may be, of 
self-righteous puritans, may require the Bible to be taught in 
the schools to the children of unwilling parents, may not an- 
other board, to-morrow, made up of professed infidels, require 
the teaching of Thomas Paine's "Age of lleason" in the very 
same schools. 

But suppose that all the parents in the city should yield a 
general consent to have the Bible taught in the schools, there 
would then arise another difficulty no less momentous than the 
first, namely, the difficulty of determining as to Avhat is the 
Bible. The Christians have a Bible, the Jews a Bible, and 
the Mormons a Bible. The Christians take as their Bible the 
books of the Old and the New Testament, while the Jews^-eject 
the New Testament but accept the Old for their Bible. Noav 
as to whether the Christians are right in believing the New 
Testament to be of divine origin, or whether the Jcavs are right 
in believing that it is not, is purely a theological question; a 
question Avhich not even the legislature of the State of Cali- 
fornia, in all the profundity of its Avisdom and the plenitude of 



62 The Bible in the Schools. 

its power lias any authority whatever to determine. But if the 
legislature itself has no authority to determine this question 
and to compel the Jews to accept the New Testament as the 
inspired word, how in heaven's name could it clothe the board 
of education with any such authority ? The only thing which 
either the State or city has a right to demand of Jews or 
Christians, is that they act the part of good citizens; hence, 
the whole question when stripped of all disguise resolves itself 
into this simple proposition, namely: " Can a professor of the 
Jewish religion be a good and faithful citizen ?" If he can, 
then -whj undertake the impossible task of forcing upon him an 
abandonment of his faith? But if, on the other hand, it is im- 
possible for a Jew to be a good citizen, then why not at once, 
like men, proclaim it to the world that for Jews, at least, there 
is no longer either civil or religious liberty in our country? 
Why entice these people to our shores with false and delusive 
promises which Ave do not intend to fulfill? Why mock them 
with the idea of religious liberty while compelling them to 
teach their children that their own creed is false, and that the 
practice of it is a crime against the laws of God and man ? 
We maintain that the civil authorities have no more right to 
force a Jewish parent to teach or pay for teaching his children 
the Christian religion than they have to force a Christian parent 
to pay for teaching his the doctrine of Judaism. Suppose that 
at some future time a majority of the board of education 
should chance to consist of Jewish citizens — for under our 
constitution a Jew has the same right to sit upon that board as 
a Christian — and suppose that this board thus constituted 
should, in precisely the same narrow-minded and intolerant 
spirit which seems to actuate the present board, undertake to 
force upon the children of Christian parents Jewish books and 
Jewish doctrines, what would Christians say of such an as- 
sumption of power? 

Would they be willing to pay for teaching their children that 
lie whom they believe to be the Messiah, the Lord and maker 
of heaven and earth, was after all only an impostor ? If any 
calling themselves Christians are base enough to answer this 
question in the affirmative, then to such we would say, go do 
unto Jews as you would have Jews do unto you; but of such 
as claim the right to control the religious education of their own 
children, we would inquire upon what principle of justice or 



The Bible in the Schools. 53 

Christianity they can deny to the Jews the same right aud 
privilege Avhich they chiim for themselves? Let us suppose, 
however, that the Jews were out of the question, would all 
Christian denominations be enabled to agree as to what is the 
Bible? We answer by no means. We have for example the 
Douay translation of the Bible, Martin Luther's translation, 
King James's translation, and we believe several other transla- 
tions, no t\v-j of which agree even in all essential particuhxrs. 
Now, which of these translations of the Bible do the board of 
education propose to force upon the schools? For if they are 
resolved to have the Bible taught in the schools, it will certainly 
devolve upon them to ascertain what is the Bible. We under- 
take to say, aud we would be willing to stake our earthly exist- 
ence upon the truth of the proposition, that no one translation 
of the Bible can be found in the city of San Francisco that 
would not be condemned by every respectacle authorized min- 
ister of some one or more of the diflferent Christian denomina- 
tions. Now, we are a little curious to know, which of these 
different denominations of Christians are to be ostracised from 
the schools, by having a book introduced and taught there as 
the Bible which they do not believe to be the Bible. We 
should bo pleased to know also what are the qualifications of 
the different members of this honorable board for ascertaining 
which amongst all the conflicting translations of the Bible is 
the correct one. Have they ever studied, and are they familiar, 
not only with the Latin and Greek, but also with the Hebrew, 
the original languages of the scriptures? Have they ever com- 
pared, or do they ever expect to compare a single one of these 
translations with the original scripture? If they have not, 
what consummate presumption, not to say downright impudence, 
will it not be in them to undertake to settle a question of trans- 
lation from the Hebrew or Greek language about which some 
of the greatest linguists of this or any other age have honestly 
differed? If, as we are very much inclined to suspect is the 
fact, not a single member of that august body, known as the 
board of education, has ever learned the Hebrew alphabet, 
how much better qualified are they for passing upon the merits 
of an English translation from an ancient Hebrew manuscript 
than would be a similar number of newly imported babboons 
from the coast of Africa ? 

But suppose that all the different denominations of Chris- 



54 The Bible in the Schools. 

tians liacl once agreed upon a particular translation of the Bible 
as iLie true one, still, we sliould not be able to find any two de- 
nominations interpreting the Bible in the samew^ay; and for all 
practical purposes, you might just as well have the wrong Bible 
as to have the right Bible wrongfully interpreted. Does any. 
one suppose that the Episcopalian and the Presbyterian, the 
Catholic and the Unitarian, or even the Methodist North and 
the Methodist South would be willing to have their children 
taught to interpret the Bible in the same way? No one is so 
stupid as to venture the ridiculous assertion, hence it would 
follow, as a necessary consequence, that of all the pupils at- 
tending a given school, only the children of one denomination 
of Christians would enjoy the advantage of learning the Bible 
as understood by their parents, while all the other pupils of 
such school would be required to interpret the Bible in a man- 
ner obnoxious to the consciences of their parents. 

If the civil authorities may, through the board of education 
or otherwise, determine as between the different religious de- 
nominations, which has the correct version of the Bible, and 
also which particular denomination interprets the Bible aright, 
and if they may require all other denominations of Christians, 
as well as Jews and non-religionists, to pay for teaching their 
children to embrace that particular interpretation of such Bible, 
what is there wanting, we would inquire, to perfect such a union 
of Church and State, as Avould I'ender the former a slave to the 
latter, and work the complete overthrow of everything in the 
shape of religious liberty.* 



*Occidental, November 26, 1864. 



Horrors of an Anti-Parental Schooi-Room. 55 

CHAPTER IX. 

horrors of our anti-parental public school system as exem- 
plified IN A SAN FRANCIS^'O SCHOOL-ROOM. 

Let those who doubt the worse than barbarous cruelty of a 
system of education which snatches from parents the right of 
selecting the schools for their own children and transfers it to 
the public at large, read the following extract from the col- 
umns of the American Idag of Saturday, April 28, 18G6, touch- 
ing the condition of the primary schools in this city. The 
article reads as follows : 

"School and School Houses. — For several days a com- 
mittee from the Board of Supervisors, in company with mem- 
bers of the grand jur}^, and others interested in school matters, 
have been visiting all the schools, for the purpose of ascertaining 
their wants and comforts, and devising a plan for their imme- 
diate relief. The primary schools are filled to overflowing, and 
summarj' action is necessary on the part of those who have in- 
terested themselves in their behalf. In several localities, it 
seemed as though it were impossible to crowd so many children. 
In a building on Tehama street, in a room twelve feet in Avidtli 
and twenty in length, from sixty to eighty little boys and girls 
were packed, with scarcely any ventihition, and no yard to play 
in; others are in the same condition. In a little cottage on 
Silver street, children occupy the steps of a winding staircase 
for seats; from forty to fifty take up with such accommodation. 
Old corner groceries are rented at about twenty dollars per 
month, and tilled with little scholars. Several of the respect- 
able school buildings are badly located and should be removed. 
The one on the corner of Fourth and Clara streets is joined to 
a blacksmith-shop and a long row of stables; the smoke from 
the shop fills the house, and the odor from the barn-yard is 
very offensive. It is proposed to sell tlie house and lot, re- 
model the Rincon building, and transfer the school there. The 
location and accommodations of the Eighth street school are 
abominable. Dr. Rowell says the place is uotifc for any one to 
live in, let alone sending children there and keeping them 
cooped up all day. A general renovation of the primary schools 
will take place soon; the report of the committee will be pub- 
lished in a few days." 

There, good reader, you have a life-drawn picture of the 
legitimate and natural workings of a system of education, 
Avhich, in the very constitution of its organism as now framed, 
bids defiance to the fundamental laws of nature. Why is it, 
that in one room, twelve feet in width and twenty in length, 



66 HoRROKs OF AN Anti-Parental School-Koom. 

from sixty to eighty little boys and girls are packed, with 
scarcely any ventilation and no yard to play in ? The answer is 
plain; they who did this thing had not for those children a pa- 
rent's love. Why is it, tlrat some forty or fifty children belong- 
ing to one school, can find no better accommodations for seats 
than the dirty steps of a winding stairs; and why is it that in 
another locality your little boys and girls, besides being stifled 
with smoke, were compelled to drink in along with the pure 
waters of science the foul and poisonous exudations of a dung- 
yard? Again the answer suggests itself; they who provided 
such accommodations for these, your children, loved them not 
with a parent's love. It will not do to say that the board of 
education had no means at their command with which to pro- 
vide any better accommodations. For many years past they 
had expended largely over $300,000 per annum upon the public 
schools of the city. How long has it been since they erected 
one of the grandest educational edifices in America, the Lincoln 
school-house, at the cost of over $100,000, finishing it off and 
furnishing it in the most superb and magnificent style? Why 
did they not take some of this money invested in this monu- 
ment to their own vanity, and employ it in building comfortable 
and healthy school-houses for the use of those dear little ones, 
instead of leaving them to be packed in corner groceries, or 
doomed to inhale the smoke of a blacksmith's forge, mingled 
with the intolerable stench of surrounding stables ? Once 
more the answer is: they who did this thing loved not those 
children with a parent's love, nor did they stand amenable to 
those who did. 

If the teacher or proprietor of each school were required to 
furnish his own buildings and other school accommodations, 
and were to be paid out of the common school fund, a sum 
proportionate to the number of his pupils, leaving each and 
every parent to select the school for his own children, does anj 
one suppose that in the entire city of San Francisco a single 
pupil would be required to use stair-steps for seats, or that 
eighty children would be crowded into one small room twelve 
by twenty feet in size, without ventilation or play-ground; or 
does any one suppose that a teacher whose pay depended upon 
the number of his pupils, and whose pupils depended upon the 
will of their parents, would ever select for his school-house a 



Horrors op an Anti-Parental School-Koom. 57 

building with a blacksmith-sliop on one side and a stable on 
the other? 

If there is a single private school in this city or State of any 
kind or character, Avhere the pupils are provided with such 
miserable accommodations as those referred to above, the fact 
has never yet come to our notice. Even the inventive genius 
of our honorable State superintendent of public instruction, it 
seems, has never succeeded in finding it out; yet not one of 
these schools receives a farthing from the public fund. The 
cause of this difference is easily explained. In the one case 
both the school-house and the teacher are selected by the 
parent, while in the other they are selected by a board of poli- 
ticians.* 

^Occidental, May 5, 18G6. 



58 Grand Jurymi;n on the Public School Hoeroes. 



OHAPTEE X. 

UNPARALLELED BARBARITY TOWARD PUBLIC SCHOOL CHILDREN CON- 
TINUED — WHAT THE GEAND JURYMEN SAID ON THE SUBJECT. 

The following extract from the report of the committee of 
grand jurymen appointed to visit the public schools of San 
Francisco, is from the AUa California of Monda}^ May 7, 1866 : 

"Mr. Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury — Gentle- 
men: Your committee ap})ointed to visit tlie public schools, 
have faithfully discharged their duty, and report as follows: 

"We found the whole number of public schools, exclusive 
of evening schools, to be forty-seven. Whole number of chil- 
dren attending same, between 10,000 and 11,000. Whole num- 
ber of teachers, 210. These schools are divided into the fol- 
lowing departments: One Boys' High School; one Girls' High 
School; one Classical or Latin School; seven Grammar Schools; 
thirty-seven Primary Schools. We found 118 primary classes, 
in which there were 3,200 pupils, occupying rented buildings at 
a monthly expense to the city of $1,200; said buildings thus 
rented at so great expense are mostly abandoned corner grocer- 
ies, uninhabitable dwellings, or damp and dark basements, ut- 
terly unfit for school purposes. At the corner of Broadway and 
Montgomery streets, we found 450 children absolutely stowed, 
one upon the other, in a building into which not sufficient ven- 
tilation and light are admitted to sustain even life, and this is 
but a fair sample of what we witnessed on Tehama, Third, 
Silver, Stockton, Post, and Eighth streets. The Greenwich 
School, owned by the city, we found far below the grade, and 
the lower portion unfit for use, and should be abandoned at the 
earliest possible moment. 

"In passing from the illy provided primary department, we 
take pleasure in saying that we found the grammar schools 
pleasant and convenient, some of which would reflect credit 
upon any city or country. We spent some time in visiting the 
Lincoln and Denman schools, about which so much has 
been said during the past year, and although they may be 
expensive structures, yet we feel assured that no intelli- 
gent citizen Avho shall visit those institutions will ever regret 
that they have been erected, proud monuments to our youthful 
and intelligent city." 

' 'Notwithstanding the poor accommodations provided for many 
of the under schools, we take great pleasure in reporting that 
we found them taught by able and devoted teachers (many 
of them graduates of our girls' high schools), the scholars mak- 
ing good progress in their studies, under good discipline and as 
happy and contented as could be expected under the cir- 



Grand Jurymen on'*the Public School Horrors. o9 

cumstances. The organization and instruction of the grammar 
and high schools far exceed our expectations, and we Ihink tljey 
will compare favorably with any institutions in the oldest cities 
of the East. * * * AH of which is respectfully submitted. 

"L. W. Kennedy, ) 
"E. H. SiNTON, V Committee." 
"E. E. EOWLAND, ) 

If any intelligent advocate of the common school system, as 
by law established, can read the above report without feeling 
his cheek burn with shame and humiliation, we certainly do not 
envy him on account of his refined sensibilities. In view of 
the startling facts which this committee of jurymen have brought 
to light touching the worse than brutal treatment to Avhich hun- 
dreds of little children attending our primary schools have been 
daily subjected, it is not a little surprising to see the silly efforts 
on the part of that committee to cover up and varnish over the 
horrible facts which they have no power wholly to conceal. For 
example, after reporting that '^ at the corner of Broadway nnd 
Montgomerjj streets they found four hundred and fifty children ah- 
solntely stoioed one upon another in a building into luhich not snf- 
fcieid ventilation and light are admitted to sustain even life, and 
this is a but a fair sample of lohat loe witnessed 0)i Tehama, Stock- 
ton, Silver, Post and, Eighth streets,'''' they then add, a little further 
on, that they found "the scholars making good progress in their 
studies, under good discipline, and as happy a)id contented as could 
be under the circumstances " 

Now as to the "discipline" question, we have no reason to 
doubt the statement of the committee. When four hundred 
and fifty children will permit themselves to be " stowed away, 
one upon another, in a building into which not sufficient venti- 
lation and light are admitted to sustain even life," we can easily 
believe that their " discipline must indeed be excellent." But 
how under heavens the little fellows thus situated can " make 
good progress i)i their studif'S," is, we confess, a little too much 
for our feeble comprehension, and far too much for our credulity. 
But these children, say our learned committeemen, " are as 
happy and conteided as coidd be expected under the circumstances." 
Here, again, we feel very much disposed to concur in the sage 
conclusion arrived at by our committee. No doubt the very 
bottom tier of these piled-up -little urchins, as they turn and 
twist, and groan and sweat, and gasp for breath, are as con- 



60 Gkand Jurymen on the Public School Horroes, 

tented and happy as could be expected under the circumstances; 
but then only think of the circumstances. 

We should like for our sagacious committee to tell us how 
much happiness and contentment could be expected amongst 
four hundred and fifty children packed, jammed and crammed 
away, one on top of another, in a dark unventilated house, 
without sufficient light and air to support life. 

This portion of the committee's report reminds ns very much 
of the man who had a regular fury of a wife. He said she ^as 
a very good wife of the sort, but then, said he: "D — n such a 
sort." So, we doubt not, those little boys and girls referred to 
by the committee, if consulted, would themselves tell us that 
they were as happy and contented as could be expected under 
the circumstances, but then we very much fear, even were they 
not to say it, that they would at least think: " D — ii. such cir- 
cumstances." 

Where children are packed away as described by our learned 
committee, it becomes an interesting subject of inquiry as to 
the relative amount of happiness enjoyed by the different strata 
of juveniles, as they lie piled one tier above another. We 
should like to know before sending a child of ours to this 
model institution, whether it were better to have him packed 
away in the bottom layer, the middle layer, or the top layer; 
and all that, of course, ought to be determined in view of the 
comparative amount of happiness to be enjoyed in these vari- 
ous positions. But after all, why need we, the parents, trouble 
our minds about the matter. Has not our learned, honorable 
and veracious State Superintendent of public instruction proved 
clearly in his last biennial report, by a reference to numerous 
judicial decisions, that parents have no right to dictate to the 
teachers; that under our glorious common school system the 
teacher is not the agent of the parent, nor in any way respon- 
sible to him for the manner in which he discharges his duty 
toward the pupil, and that the parent has no remedy as against 
either teacher or school trustees? Then where is the use of 
parents troubling themselves about the existence of a state of 
things which they have no power to change? 

This, no doubt, is the course of reasoning adopted by those 
parents (if they ever do reason) who are daily permitting their 
own dear little children to be subjected to a course of barbar- 
ous and inhuman treatment such as no Southern master ever 



Grand Jurymen on the Public School Horrors. .61 

dreamed of imposing upon even the most refractory of his 
slaves. 

If ifc could be proved that, during the late war, 450 United 
States soldiers, -while Ijing as prisoners in the hands of their 
Confederate captors, had, bj the order of Jefferson Davis, been 
stowed, one upon the other, in a building into which not 
sujG&cient ventilation and light wei'e admitted to sustain even 
life, does any one doubt that the whole radical press, from the 
New York Tribune down to the Sacramento Union, would 
be found howling for the blood of the ex-President of the ex- 
Confederacy, on account of such cruelty. Aye, would they not 
claim that even the forfeit of his life would afford but a very 
feeble and inadequate atonement for such barbarous and 
unheard-of cruelty? 

And should it turn out that the victims of such monstrous 
barbarity were negro prisoners, some of these pious souls 
would, most likely, go into spasms or burst a blood-vessel in the 
very exuberance of their sanctimonious rage. 

And yet this very class of zealots, with a most remarkable 
sort of consistency, will stand quietly hy and permit thousands 
of their own children to be subjected to a course of treatmeu^^ 
looked upon as inhumanly barbarous when practiced by one 
enemy toward another in time of war. And this, forsooth, is 
what they call education. Yes, a most glorious and perfect sys- 
tem of education; to attack which, in the language of a certain 
up-country California judge, "is evidence of either a knave, a 
fool or a bigot," and the upholding of which is, as» a matter of 
course, proof positive of a sage, a philosopher and a Christian. 

There are other features of this report upon which wo 
design in future to comment. * 

*Oceidtntal, May IMh, 18G6. 



62 Proud Monuments of Our Youthful City. 

CHAPTEE XI. 

REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC SCHOOL HORRORS CONTINUED — 
PROUD MONUMENTS TO OUR YOUTHFUL AND INTELLIGENT CITY. 

The committee of jurymen, whose report touching the con- 
dition of the San Francisco public schools has already been 
partially reviewed, after depicting in strong terms the revolting 
conditioa in which they found the primary schools, and after 
stating that they found the children in certain localities stowed 
one on top of another, without sufficient light and air to sustain 
life, then proceed to compliment the grammar schools thus : 

"In passing from the illy-provided primary department, we 
take pleasure in saying that we found the grammar schools 
pleasant and convenient; some of which would reflect great 
credit upon any city or country. We spent some time in visit- 
ing the Lincoln and Denmau schools, about which so much 
has been said during the past year; and although they may be 
expensive structures, yet we feel assured that no intelligent 
citizen who shall visit these institutions will ever regret that 
they have been erected — proud monuments to our youthful and 
intelligent city.'^ 

Now, why this difference between the accommodations of the 
primary and of the grammar schools? Why were the pupils of 
the former crowded, as the jurymen say, "into abandoned cor- 
ner groceries and uninhabitable dwellings, or dark and damp 
basements, utterly unfit for school purposes," while those at- 
tending the grammar schools were so pleasantly and conveni- 
ently situated, occupying magnificent edifices "that would 
reflect credit upon any city or country?" Does not the school 
fund of this city belong just as much to the jDupils of the 
primary as to those of the grammar schools? Are not the 
former just as much entitled to a warm, comfortable house, to 
fresh, pure air and to an abundance of light as are those of the 
latter? And do not these j'oung and tender plants stand in as 
much need of protection from heat and cold, and from a damp, 
foul, and poisonous atmosphere as do their older and more 
hardy brothers? If the little boy or girl of six or eight years old 
does not require and is not justly entitled to even more protec- 
tion than the youth of maturer years, then has the whole order 
of juvenile nature been reversed since the introduction of our 
glorious common school system. 



Peoud Monuments of Our Youthful City. G3 

What would be said of tlie unnatural father, who would rob 
his 3'oung child of the indispensable necessaries of life; clothe 
him in rags; feed him upon rotten and unhealthy food, and 
quarter him in a pig-sty, at the utter sacrifice of all comfoi't 
and the hazard of health and life, to the end that another child, 
more advanced in years, might live in a marble palace, adorned 
with purj^le and gold, drinking the most costly wines, and feast- 
ing upon the fat of the laud ? To say that such a father Avould 
be a brute, would be to pay him a m6st unmerited comj^liment, 
since no brute was ever known so outrageously to violate the 
law of parental duty. 

Yet such a monstrous discrimination, in favor of one child 
and against another, Avould not be more cruel and unjust than 
that which is daily practiced in San Francisco, in fjivor of the 
pupils of the grammar, and against those of the primary 
schools. Whilst on the one hand, the former are quartered in 
splendid palaces, richly, and even extravagantly furnished, 
supplied with an abundance of light, and pure, fresh and invig- 
orating air, lacking nothing which can either contribute to their 
bodily comfort or pander to their pride; the latter, on the 
contrary, are doomed to inhale the foul and infected air of dark, 
damp and dreary basements, far better suited for the habita- 
tion of slimy snakes and toads, that feed upon dungeon vapors, 
than for the home of those bright, beautiful and lovely little 
girls and boys; those almost angelic intelligences, destined for 
heaven, and made to the image of God. 

Perhaps, though, we shall be told, that this unjust discrimi- 
nation in favor of one class of public schools and against 
another, is not the work of the parents, but of the officers of 
the school department, who alone, under our law, have control of 
the subject. We answer, that this is the very truth which we 
are most anxious to impress upon the minds of the peojjle. The 
reason why the youth of our country are speeding their way to 
ruin physically, mentally and morally, with almost lightning 
velocity is, that they have been deprived of parental care, and 
turned over into the custody of the pitiless, heartless and soul- 
less body politic. They have been surrendered into the hands 
of vain, proud and unscrupulous men, who hesitate not to rob 
them of shelter, rob them of air, and rqb them of Heaven's 
blessed light, to the utter destruction of all comfort, and the 
loss of all health, periling, and even sacrificing life itself; and 



64 Peoud Monuments op Our Youthful City. 

when these self-sufficient hypocrites have, with their blood- 
money, erected their lordly palaces — their Lincoln and their 
Denman school-houses — they, or their apologists, compla- 
cently turn to the fathers and mothers of their wronged and mur- 
dered primary school victims, and ask them to behold the 
'' 'proud monuments of our youthful and intelligent cityy^ 



^Occidental, June 4, 1866. 



A. Chauge from the "Leader." 65 

CHAPTER XII. 

THE "CALIFORNIA LEADER" ON OUR STATE SCHOOL SYSTEM. 

Uucler the above bead, the California Leader, a respectable 
weekly published in San Francisco citj, in its issue of June 2, 
1866, made some strictures touching our position on the school 
question, which we deemed it our duty to notice. Among other 
things the Leader said: 

"There are those who earnestly and bitterly condemn the 
entire educational plan enforced by law in California; they ob- 
ject to the fundamental principle of a State system of educa- 
tion; they contend that parents are the natural guardians and 
dii-ectors of the education of their own sons and daughters, and 
are responsible to God and society for their right or wrong 
tr:iining, and that the intervention of the State in this matter 
is an intrusion into a foreign jurisdiction, a stepping out of its 
proper sphere, and a trespass upon the heaven-ordained rights 
and duties of the parental office. At first glance, this position 
has a plausible show of seeming right ii] its favor, and it is not 
to be wondered at that such men as Zacli. Montgomery, and 
such papers as the Occidental and Vanguard, should obtain the 
inconsiderate sym]iathy of the parental heart, by dexterously 
appealing to its instinctive impulses, rather than to the higher 
human reason that can only decide upon what is truly right and 
best, after a very careful consideration of the whole subject- 
matter." 

We replied as follows : 

As regards our supposed opposition to a "State system of 
education," or our condemnation of the "entire educational 
plan enforced by law in California," the allegation is only true 
to this extent, namely: we are opposed to that feature of our 
State system of education Avhich leaves the parent no alternative 
but either to forfeit to the State all the taxes which he pays for 
educational purposes, and then educate his children entirely at 
his own expense, or else send them to a school where he be- 
lieves in his heart that neither health, life, nor morals, Avill be 
protected. As we have repeatedly said, we are not opposed to 
the State's aiding the parent in the great work of education 
when necessary, provided only that the latter can he left free to 
choose Ids oion school, and to exercise that paramount care, control 
and guardlansliip over his child, tvhich the laivs of nature and na- 
ture's God posit iv el u require him to exercise. 

5 



66 A Chaege feom the "Leader." 

"At first glance," says our friend of the Leader, "this posi- 
tion lias a plausible show of seeming right in its favor, and it 
is not to be wondered at that such men as Zach. Montgomery, 
and such papers as tlie Occidental and Vanguard, should obtain 
the inconsiderate sympathy of the pai'ental heart, by dextei 
ously appealing to its instinctive impulses rather than to the 
higher human reason," etc. 

Now will the Leader inform us who it was that implanted in 
the parental heart these instinctive impiilses to which we aro 
accused of appealing? Do they owe their origin to a good or 
an evil soui'ce ? Were they given for a good or a bad purpose? 
Does not this "higher human reason," of which the Leader 
speaks, and these " instinctive impulses" both owe their origin 
to one and the same author; and is not that author the God of 
all truth; and can the God of truth teach one doctrine by tho 
voice of these instinctive impulses which He has implanted in 
the human heart, and at the same time inculcate a contrary doc- 
trine through the instrumentality of this higher reason of which 
we are told? 

Let the Leader speak out upon these questions, and tell us, 
seriously, is there a conflict between the voice of reason and 
the voice of parental affection ? Does this higher reason which 
is invoked inculcate the blasphemous doctrine that the Deity 
committed a grand mistake in assigning children to the custody 
of those Avho love them Avith a parent's love, and whose destiny 
for weal or woe is so intimately interwoven with theirs? 

These are questions worthy of your most serious considera- 
tion, Mr. Leader, and we trust that you will not neglect to give 
them your attention. 

The Leader takes the ground that if we believe our present 
educational system so pregnant with all the evils which we 
charge upon it, we ought to advocate its entire destruction, for 
the reason that any reformation in so corrupt an institution as 
we represent it to be is utterly out of the question. Our con- 
temporary is doubtless aware of the historical fact that before 
the Christian era there were erected throughout the pagan world 
many magnificent and costly structures for purposes of heathen 
worship, which are now the recognized temples of tho living 
God. The idolatrous Romans, for example, built their Pan- 
theon, which they solemnly dedicated to the Avorship of all the 
false divinities of the universe, and to-day the Pantheon stands 



A Charge from the "Leader." 67 

a Christian church, named in honor of all the saints, and conse- 
crated to the service of the one true and everlasting Divinity. 
So, if possible, let it be with your common school system. 
Whilst under the control of politicians, it has ever been a temple 
dedicated to all the vices — a hot-bed for disease, immorality 
and death. Let it be placed, then, under parental jurisdic- 
tion and control, so that it may become the sanctuary of all the 
virtues — a nursery for the development of physical health, 
mental strength and moral purity. If possible, "sve say, let this 
be done. But if it is not possible to cleanse without destroy- 
ing the edifice, still we say let it bo cleansed. 

The following passage, which wo quote from the same article 
above referred to, sets forth clearly the fate which the consoli- 
dationists have in store for our country, unless the sleeping 
masses, and particularly our criminally indifferent parents, 
arouse themselves from their unaccountable apathy, and strike 
one vigorous and determined blow for their own and their chil- 
dren's threatened liberties. In speaking of the authority which 
this State does and ought to exercise in the matter of education, 
the Leader says: 

"So far from interfering too much, it does not interfere 
enough in the matter of education. It leaves the parents free 
to send theii' children to school or not, as they ])refer, and 
allows them to tako them out of school too soon, and to change 
at will from school to school. Thus the parents, and not the 
State, do interfere too much against the good of their own 
children, and against the good of tho State, too. The State 
ought to compel all children to go to school, compel them 
to stay there until they arc fifteen years old, and forbid parents 
to tako them av.ay without good causo, to be judged of hij the 
State under Jixed rules. '^ 

"Were these simply tho sentiments of a single newspaper 
editor, there would be nothing alarming in them; but unfor- 
tunately they arc tho sentiments of tho great body of those who 
justify tho present common school system. In tho District of 
Columbia, these sentiments have already assumed tho authority 
of positive law, in tho shape of an Act of Congress, tho viola- 
tion of which subjects tho offender to prosecution and punish- 
ment as a criminal. More than twelve mouths ago, the Sacra- 
mento, superintendent of public instruction, in a printed report, 
recommended "that we throw open wide tho doors of our 
■public schools, and compel tho children to enter." The State 



68 A Chaege fkom the "Leader." 

Superintendent, in liis official organ, echoed the same senti- 
ment, and to-day every consolidationist in the land stands 
ready to give it his indorsement. "We now appeal to the parents 
of California, and particularly to the fathers and mothers of 
San Francisco, and would to God that we could appeal in such 
thunder-tones as would shake a continent, and ask: Are you 
prepared to surrender the authority which God has given you 
over your own children? Are you content to be the mere 
breeders for the State, leaving it to a corrupt corporation to shape 
the temporal and eternal destinies of those little ones whom an 
Almighty providence has intrusted to your care? If you are 
willing that the State shall dictate to you Avhere, how and by 
whom your children shall be instructed until they are fifteen 
years of age, then we are curious to know of what use is the 
parental office? Why not abolish the whole matrimonial sys- 
tem, and substitute free-loveism at once? Indeed, it is a fact 
well worthy the serious consideration of the philosopher and 
the statesman, no less than of the moralist, that just in propor- 
tion as the influence of this anti-parental system of education 
is felt, in a similar proportion are the sanctity and binding force 
of the matrimonial bond weakened and destroyed."^ 



•Occidental, Juno 11, 18G6. 



Discussion with the "Leader." 09 

CHAPTER XITI. 

THE LEADER AND THE COMMON SCHOOLS AGAIN. 

In its issue of the sixteenth of June, 18GG, the California 
Leader replied to our views as expressed in the foregoing 
article, as follows: 

"The Occidental and Vanguard devotes more than a column 
of the last issue to a criticism of our views concerning the edu- 
cational system of California. This journal seems to us, how- 
ever, to have overlooked the main point and gist of the ar^- 
ment. Ifc asks if there is a conflict between the voice of reason 
and the voice of parental affection? Wo answer, there need be 
no conflict bet^^^^en parental love and parental judgment in the 
education of children. A wise parent, whatever may bo his re- 
ligious faith or his code of morals, can safely send his children 
to our public schools. Why? Because the moral and religious 
training of the youth is not interfered Avitli by our teachers, but 
is left to tlio caro of the parent at home. Wo beg leave again 
to call Mr. Montgomerj^'s attention to tho following language in 
our previous article. After showing that tho majority of parents 
neglect to instruct their own children in school learning, thus 
necessitating the friendly intervention of the State in their 
behalf, Ave came to the essential and vital point of tlie question 
and said : Tho parent may train his child morally and religiously 
just as he chooses. State education does not interfere in the 
slightest degree with this duty, nor with tho right of the parent 
to do it. The business of tho State in education is to rear up 
its youth to become intelligent and good citizens. This it has 
a right, and this it is its duty to do; but it is not its province 
nor its wish, nor does it undertake, in fact, to interfere with 
tho moral instruction and religious education of the various 
households whence come the pupils that fill ics schools." 

To the above we replied : 

The pith and substance of the Leader^s position, if we under- 
stand it, and we think we do, seems to be embodied in two 
sentences above quoted, where he says: " A wise parent, ivliat- 
ever may he Ms religious faith or his code of morals, can safchj send 
his children to our common schools. Why? Because the moral 
and religions trainiiig of the youth is not interfered loiih hy our 
teachers, but is left to the care of the parent at home.'''' 

Let us now consider one of these propositions at a time. 
First then, is it true, as the Leader asserts, that a wise parent — 
by which, it is presumable, he means every wise parent — can 
safely send his children to our public schools? It is a fact 



70 Discussion with the "Leader." 

whicli we presume the Leader will not deny that there aro in 
this very city many thousands of children whose parents are 
educating them at private institutions and paying for their 
tuition out of their own money rather than have them educated 
at the public expense, for the very reason that they do not 
believe with the Leader that they can safely send them to our 
public schools. 

Now, to say the least of it, it certainly argues a superabun- 
dant amount of modesty in our friend of the Leader to assume 
that none of those parents are ivise simply because they happen 
to differ with his leadership as to the propriety of sending their 
children to the j^ublic schools. Waiving all question as to the 
modesty of the thing, however, we shall come directly to the 
logical part of the Leader'' s position. The reason that he as- 
signs why a "wise parent can safely send his children to our 
public schools" is this — mark his words: '^Because," says he, 
''the moral and religious trainivg of the youth is not interfered 
with hy our teachers, but is left to the care of the parent at 
home." We apprehend that in making this statement, the 
Leader simply means to say just what the statute says, when it 
declares (section 60 of the school law) that "No books, tracts, 
papers, catechisms, or other publications of a sectarian or de- 
nominational character shall be used or distributed in any 
school, or shall be made a part of any school-library; neither 
shall any sectarian or denominational doctrine be taught 
therein." 

Now, while we unhesitatingly assert, and stand ready at all 
times to make good our assertion, that the above statute is 
daily set at defiance by many of those whose duty it is to enforce 
it, we shall, uevertheless, treat this subject, for the time being at 
least, just as though this law never had been and never could be 
violated. 

Suppose, then, we take it as a fixed fact that in none of the 
public schools are any books, tracts or papers of a sectarian or 
denominational character ever allowed to be used, and that no 
sectarian or denominational doctrines are permitted to be taught 
therein — does it necessarily follow, in consequence of such ex- 
clusion, that every wise parent can safely send his children to 
our public schools? Is it possible that the o»??/ danger from 
which it is necessary to shield the young mind, is the direful 
influence of religious and denominational teachings? Is there uo 



Discussion with the "Leader." 71 

profanity, no deceit, no dishonesty, no obscenity, no downright 
atheistical infidelity, against which 3-011 would have the parent 
protect his child? Why, sir, according to your very remark- 
able system of logic, there is not a deu of iniquity iu San Fran- 
cisco, whether it be a tippling shop, a gambling hell, or a 
Chinese bawdy house, where the parent cannot safely send his 
child, because, to adopt your own mode of reasoning, there is 
not one of these vile sinks of infamy, whose abandoned and 
crime-steeped inmates would ever think of troubling him with 
sectarian or denominational teachings. The}^ too, Avould leave 
all that " to the care of the parents at home." 

It is quite evident that our friend of the Leader, as some oth- 
ers have done, has fallen into the mistake of supposing that we 
were fighting the present common school system fiom a sec- 
tarian instead of a philosophical and parental standpoint; that 
we were pleading exclusively the cause of some particular re- 
ligious denomination, and not the great cause of humanity 
everywhere. The principle upon which we base our opposition 
to this system is one that is limited neither by creeds, climes 
nor countries; it is, or ought to be, equally dear to the 
Christian, the Jew and the Mahometan. So all-pervading in its 
character, and so ]ilaiuly writteji upon the heart of every living 
creature is this principle, that beasts, birds and bats read, un- 
derstand and obey it. Even the very fishes that dwell in the 
profoundest depths of the ocean recognize it as their paramount 
law, and hearken to its behests with unfaltering fidelity. It is 
a principle coeval with omnipotence, boundless as the universe, 
and as everlasting as eternity. We refer, of course, to the prin- 
ciple by us so often insisted upon in connection Avith this edu- 
cational question, namely: parental love, which carries with it 
the corresponding duty of parental guardianship and protection. 
We maintain, as a rule, that it is the duty of parents — not the 
parents of this creed, of that creed or the other creed, but the 
parents of all creeds, professions and callings — to protect the 
health, the life, the honor and the morals of their children; and 
to this end Ave hold it to be obligatory upon the parents of each 
and every child, aided by all the lights within his reach, to de- 
termine for himself, without the authoritative interposition of 
city, county, State or Federal officials, whether or not a particu- 
lar teacher is fit or unfit to have charge of his child. 

We know not how others may view this subject, but for our- 



72 Discussion with the "Leader." 

selves, until we can discover some liitlierto unknown procesa 
whereby we may infuse into tlie breasts of our neighbors that 
love and affection for our children which we ourselves entertain 
for them, and until those neighbors can learn to perform the im- 
possible task of feeling that their happiness is as intimately con- 
nected as our own with the proper education and future welfare 
of our children, we can never consent to allow those neighbors, 
even though they be our brothers in blood, in politics and in re- 
ligion, to divide with us the fearful, the awful responsibility of 
choosing for these children the persons who are to take charge 
of their education, and to shape for them both their temporal 
and everlasting destinies. 

In order, if possible, to put a final quietus upon the ground- 
less charge of sectarianism, so often preferred against us, we 
here repeat what we have asserted over and over again, namely: 
that if every man, woman and child in the United States be- 
longed to one religion, we should still insist upon exactly the 
same change in our common school system for which we are 
now struggling, and that for the simple reason that religion 
itself does not enable one man to love the children of another 
with the same warm, zealous and devoted affection which he 
spontaneously lavishes upon his own; neither does it enable him 
to know the wants, dispositions and capacities of his neighbor's 
children, whom, perhaps, he never saw, as well as he ought to 
know the wants, dispositions and capacities of his own. Nor 
does it enable him to know, as well as their own fathers and 
mothers know, what progress his neighbor's children are mak- 
ing, either upon the upward and difficult path of knowledge 
and virtue, or upon the downward and easy road of idleness 
and immorality. 

If, as we maintain, our objection to the present educational 
system would hold good, were all the voters in the land upright, 
high-minded and virtuous citizens, with what ten thousand-fold 
power do they apply in a community like ours in San Francisco, 
made up of all sorts, grades and characters of people? 

And now, 3Ir. Leader, before parting, we shall propound to 
you two or three very simple questions, to which we confidently 
hope that you will, at your earliest convenience, furnish us an 
answer. If you were the father of a young, beautiful and vir- 
tuous daughter, of a suitable age to attend school, whose 
honor and purity of morals you prized more than all the gold 



Discussion with the "Leadeb." 73 

and silver of the entire world, and if you were living in the 
midst of a great city, abounding in drunkards, and gamblers, 
and thieves, and debauchees, would 3'ou be willing for each and 
every one of these abandoned wretches to share equally with 
yourself the responsible duty of selecting the persons who were 
to become the keepers of her honor and the architects of her 
destiny ? Do you really believe, ilir. Leader^ that the incarnate 
fiend, who would spend his time in plotting the ruin of your 
child, in laying snares for her virtue, and in preparing for her 
a life of shame and an eternity of misery, ought thus to be al- 
lowed to step in your shoes and play the guardian to your 
child ? 

If you do not so believe, then tell us, dear Leader, is it not 
to say the least, a little uncharitable in you to charge with a 
want of wisdom that father who refuses to send his child to 
the public shool where the teacher, as you, sir, will not deny, 
owes no more his authority, and is no more amenable to the 
father of his pupil than to the would-be seducer of that pupil, 
for the manner in which ho discharges his duties as such 
teacher. Come, speak out, Mr. Leader, the subject is becoming 
interesting; we want to hear you on these propositions.* 

*0<xidmtal, June 25, 1866. 



74 Discussion with the "Leader." 

•> 

CHAPTEE XIV. 

THE ' ' leader" and THE COMMON SCHOOLS CONTINUED THE * ' LEADER" 

BECOMING AVERSE TO DISCUSSION. 

The California Leader of June 30, 1866, treated its readers 
to another lengthy article in the shaj^e of a criticism upon our 
position on the school question. The Leader began by saying: 

" We do not intend to be drawn into a series of educational 
polemics with any one." This certainly sounds very strangely, 
coming, as it does, from the attacking party. 

You will not charge, 31r. Leader, that this discussion is one 
of our seeking, nor will you deny that it commenced by the dis- 
charge of a gun from your own battery. With what propriety, 
then, can you now turn round, in the heat of a discussion which 
you yourself have inaugurated, and say that you "do not mean 
to be drawn into a series of educational polemics with any one ?" 
You must pardon the comparison, but, sir, you remind us forci- 
bly of an individual, who, after breaking a club over an adver- 
sary's head, and then, mistrusting that he had done a very rash 
thing, would at once disavow all intention of getting into a fight. 
So far as we are concerned, while we have sought iio contro- 
versy with the Leader, we have certainly made, and intend to 
make, no effort to avoid one. Not that we claim to be anything 
like an equal match for the distinguished editor of that jour- 
nal in point of polemic talent; but of one thing we do feel fully 
assured, namely: that the superior strength of our cause is 
amply sufficient to compensate for any lack of ability on our 
part as one of its humble defenders. 

Whilst upon this subject, we will take occasion further to add 
that for some reasons we feel gratified that this controversy has 
arisen. One reason is, that our friend of the Leader, while he 
handles his side of the question with clearness and abilitj^ does 
not forget the courtesy which invariably characterizes the style 
of a gentleman, and no proposition is better settled than that 
truth is always the gainer by fair discussion. Another reason 
is, that we are persuaded we see signs of reformation in the 
views of the Leader, with reference to the questions involved in 
this discussion. For example, it has been but three Aveeks since 
you, 3Ir. Leader, announced the startling doctrine that "The 
State ought to compel all children to go to school; compel them 
to stay there until they are fifteen years old, and forbid parents 



Discussion with the "Leader." 75 

to take tliem away -without good cause, to be judged of by the 
State." You furtber argued to prove tbab parents sbould never 
be permitted to " change at wi]! from school to school." Then 
you were willing to allow the State not only to determine for 
you by whom, how long and what your child should be taught, 
but were willing to go so far as to leave it to the State to say 
whether j-ou might take j'our child from one school and send it 
to another. Now, however, like a very sensible man Avhich we 
know you are, you say: "If wo had half a dozen children to 
be educated in this city, very probably we should send one of 
our daughters to the Denman public school; one of our sons to 
the Lincoln public school; another one to the foreign public 
school, to learn the modern languages; another one, perhaps, 
to the City College, a private school, to bo taught chemistry, or 
geology, or natural philosoph}^ or the ancient languages; still 
anotlier one to Laudenschlager's Commercial School, also a pri- 
vate school, to fit him for mercantile life. So for the remaining 
child we should choose some other private school, such as 
Huddart's Academ}^ or the Mills Institute, for instance, where 
unusual pains are taken to teach drawing, or music, or painting, 
or some other special branch of education. Now in all this 
^variety of schools we should simply be aiming at the highest 
good of our childi-en, according to their varying capacities and 
the special characteristics of the different schools." 

Now, this is spoken like a father, a statesman and a philoso- 
pher, and it looks to us as if the Leader were about to lead off 
in thoriglit direction. 

It was but yesterday that you would have placed every one 
of your six children so completely under the control of the 
State that you would not even have reserved to yourself the 
poor privilege of changing them from school to school, without 
the State's consent. Now, however, 3'ou are Avilling to exercise 
that responsibility which God Almigiity requires 3'ou to exer- 
cise, of determining for yourself where, how and by Avhom each 
of these children shall be educated, without saying one Avord 
to the State on the subject. And what is more wonderful still, 
you now tbink it "very probable" that you would send at least 
three of these children to private schools, where the teachers, 
of course, would stand directly responsible to you, and not to 
the board of education, for the manner in which they might 
discharge their professional duties toward your children. 



76 Discussion with the "Leadee." 

In the passage above quoted, you advance several very good 
ideas, Avhicli we are desirous of seeing so thoroughly impressed 
upon your mind that you will never forget them. For example, 
after telling us that you should probably send your six children 
to as many different schools, you say: "Now, in all this variety 
of schools we should simply be aiming at the highest good of 
our children according to their varying capacities, and the 
special characteristics of the different schools." 

Thus it appears that you agree with us in the opinion that he 
who, in the selection of a school for a child, would, to use your 
own language, "aim at the highest good" of that child, ought 
to make his selection with some reference to the child's partic- 
ular " capacity," wliaiicver it may be. Hence it is that you are 
right in saying that you (not the school directors, but you your- 
self) would send one of your children to one school to be taught 
the foreign languages, another to a different school to learn 
mathematics, etc., for who is so likely to understand these 
"varying capacities" (as you express it), among children of 
the same parents as the parents themselves.^ Certainly not 
the board of education, who perhaps never saw either parents 
or children. Again, who is so deeply interested, and con- 
sequently so likely to be careful to select schools adapted to 
these "varying capacities," as the fathers and mothers of the 
pupils, whose happiness depends almost as much upon 
a proj^er selection as does the happiness of the pupils them- 
selves? While on this branch of the subject, we must beg 
leave to propound to you one other question. 

If you choose — as you say you probably should — to send 
three of your children to the public schools, and three of them 
to private schools, and if, in so doing, you should, as you say, 
" simply be aiming at the highest good of" all, "according to 
their varying capacities," will you have the goodness to tell us 
why, or upon Avhat principle of justice, propriety, or good pol- 
icy, the State should be required to pay for three of these chil- 
dren, while you are compelled to pay for the other three ? 
According to your own showing, the highest good of three of 
these children requires that they should attend certain public 
schools, while the highest good of the other three requires that 
they should attend certain private schools. 

Now, suppose that instead of being a man of wealth — as all 
editors are — you chanced to be afflicted with poverty; what (hen 



Discussion with the "Leader." 77 

would become of those three children whose "highest good" 
requires them, as you sav yourself, to attend the three .private 
schools to which you refer? In such a case, is it not easy to 
see that three of your children would be educated with a view 
to their "highest good," while the other three would be robbed 
of that privilege? 

And pray tell us, how can you, without violating alike the 
dictates of parental affection and the plainest rules of con- 
sistency, justify the State in thus discriminating invidiously be- 
tween your own children, by preparing three of these children 
for those avocations in life for which nature designed them, and 
leaving the other three wholly unprepared for those pursuits 
which alone are adapted to their natural capacities? Do not 
the school taxes which you pay belong just as much to one of 
your children as to another? Then how can yon, without the 
perpetration of the grossest injustice, to say nothing of the vio- 
lence done to parental affection, consent to so unequal a disti'i- 
bution between your own children of that money which belongs 
equally and alike to all. 

In response to the claim which we sel up in behalf of the 
right of each parent to choose the teacher for his own children, 
you say: "Now, every parent who can have a private teacher 
exclusively for his own family does this, and he alone." 

In penning this sentence, 3'ou seem strangely enough to have 
entirely forgotten what 3'ou had just said above, namely: that if 
you had half a dozen children, you would, in regard to at least 
three, and in one sense we may say in regard to all of them, 
exercise this very right which we claim you ought to exercise, 
to wit: the right of choosing their teachers. 

One of these children, you tell us, you would send to the 
City College, a private school, to be taught chemistry and geol- 
ogy; another to Lauudenschlager's Commercial School, another 
private school, to be fitted for mercantile life, etc. Now, would 
you not in each of these cases be exercising this very right which 
3'ou tell us only he does exercise "who can have a private 
teacher exclusively for his own family?" Does not every pa- 
rent in this State who now sends his children to a private 
school exercise exactly this right? 

Where, then, is the difficulty in allowing all schools which 
will conform to certain general regulations to be private schools, 
so far at least, as the selection of the teachers is concerned, and 



78 Discussion with the "Leader." 

yet public schools in the manner of drawing their pay? If the 
Lincoln School, without regard to the wishes of parents, is 
teaching one thousand children, and preparing them for their 
highest good, and your Lauudenschlager's school, with the con- 
sent of parents, is teaching and preparing for their "high- 
est good" another thousand children, is there any sufficient 
reason why the former school should receive more of the public 
school moneys than the latter? Or is there any reason why 
the Lincoln School, had its teachers been selected as the free 
choice of the parents of each of its thousand pupils, should re- 
ceive less of the public moneys than when these same teach- 
ers are chosen in the present way ? 

These, Mr. Leader, are plain, simple questions, categorically 
asked, and we should be much pleased to have them categori- 
cally answered. 

And now, dear Leader, before concluding, we must, even at 
the hazard of becoming tedious, take the liberty of recalling to 
your attention a question or t\^o which we propounded to you 
■in our issue of June 25, which you touch very gingerly, and we 
think we might say very evasively. The questions Avere these: 

"If you were the father of a young, beautiful and virtuous 
daughter of a suitable age to attend school, whose honor and 
purity of morals you prized more than all the gold and silver of 
this entire world, and if you Avere living in the midst of a great 
city abounding in drunkards, and gamblers, and thieves, and 
debauchees, Avould you bo willing for each and every one of 
these abandoned wretches to share equally with yourself the 
responsible duty of selecting the persons Avho were to become 
the keepers of her honor and the architects of her destiny; do 
you really believe, Ilr. Leader, that the incarnate fiend who 
would spend his days and nights in plotting the ruin of your 
child, in laying snares for her virtue, and in preparing for her 
a life of shame and an eternity of misery, ought thus to be 
allowed to step into your shoes and play the guardian to your 
child?" 

Now here is your answer. You say: "The objection that 
thieves, and drunkards, and gamblers have a voice in choosing 
public teachers, is answered by the fact, that they only cast 
their votes for the trustees, by whom alone the teachers are 
finally selected." 

Now we ask, in all candor, is not this a simple evasion of the 



Discussion with the "Leader." 79 

question ? We asked whether you were willing that thieves, 
pickpockets, debauchees, etc., should divide equally with your- 
self the responsible duty of selecting the persons who were to 
become the keepers of your daughter's honor and the architects 
of her destiny. Now who, under our present educational sys- 
tem, are these persons? Evidently, they are those who have 
the power to appoint and remove teachers; to designate the 
books; to provide the buildings; to prescribe the rules; to either 
separate or thrust together the good and the bad of both sexes, 
etc. ; in other words, they aro the school trustees. But, say you, 
the thieves, and drunkards, and gamblers, "only cast their 
votes for these trustees." 

Ye gods, what an "onhj/'^ So, according to every Christian's 
belief, the deicides who condemned to death the Savior of the 
world "ouli/" cast their votes in favor of his crucifixion. It is 
quite true-that the thief, the pickpocket, and the Avould-bo se- 
ducer of your child "only" cast their votes for the trustees who 
are to select her teacher; but is not this exactly the same au- 
thority which j-ou yourself exercise in the premises? "What 
else do you do, and Avhat else does the law allow you to do to- 
ward controlling the education of j'our child in the public 
schools except simply to cast j^our vote for the trustees ? 

Now, the question is: " Are yomuilluig, then, to stand with 
reference to your child's education not only on a par with every 
gambler, thief, and pickpocket in the community, but even 
with the vile wretch who has marked that child for the victim 
of his infernal and beastly appetite? 

We have many other things to say to 3'ou, dear Leader, with 
reference to your last article on the school question, but we shall 
leave you to chew upon this for the present, promising you at 
the same time that you shall hear from us again.* 

*Occidental, July 9, 18G6. 



80 Discussion with the "Leader." 

CHAPTER XV. 

THE "leader" and THE SCHOOLS CONTINUED — WHAT THEY TEACH AS 
HISTORY IN THE SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOLS — JEFFERSON 
DAVIS PICTURED AS A THIEF — THE CONFEDERATES CHARGED WITH 
HAVING HIRED BOOTH TO ASSASSINATE LINCOLN, AND OTHER 
RIDICULOUS FALSEHOODS. 

The California Leader, in an article on the subject of the 
public schools, after questioning our accusation to the effect 
that the school-room is the spot wherein have been planted and 
nurtured into fruition the seeds of hjpocrisj, dishonesty, infi- 
delity, bigotry and intolerance, both religious and political, 
the terrible harvest of evils from which now afflict our unfor- 
tunate country, then proceeds to say: " Of course, if this asser- 
tion were true, our whole school system ought to be demolished, 
and not merely reformed. But since the law prohibits, and 
the practice of our schools prevents, the teaching not only 
of sectarian doctrines, but also of either religion or irreligion, 
of infidelity or immoralit}^ prescribing instead thereof a defi- 
nite course of literary and scientific training, and even enumer- 
ating the books that must be used, there is no possibility of the 
truth of the charges made in the above quotation." 

There are several propositions contained in the above sen- 
tence, which we propose to examine in detail. 

Is it true, as here asserted, that the law prohibits and the 
practice of our schools prevents the teaching, not only of sec- 
tarian doctrine, but also of either religion or irreligion, infi- 
delity or immorality? Let us first consider the "law," and 
then the "practice of the schools." So far as the law itself is 
concerned, we admit that it prohibits the teaching of religion 
in the public schools, as the following section, a portion of 
which we quoted in a former article, abundantly proves. Sec- 
tion sixty of the school laws reads thus: 

" Sec. go. No books, tracts, papers, catechisms or other ]:>ub- 
lications of a sectarian or denominational character, shall be 
used or distributed in any school, or shall be made a part of 
iiny school library; neither shall any sectarian or denomina- 
tional doctrine be taught therein; and any school, district, 
town or city, the officers of which shall knowingly allow any 
school to be taught in violation of these provisions, shall forfeit 
the right to any State or county apportionment of school 



Discussion with the "Leader." 81 

moneys, and upon satisfactory evidence of such violation, the 
State Superintendent and county superintendent shall withhold 
both State and county apportionments." 

Thus it appears that the law not only prohibits the teaching 
of religion in the public schools, but enacts a heavy penalty in 
the shape of a forfeiture of all interest in the school money for 
a violation of this law. But then where is the law prescribing 
a penalty for teaching irreligion in the schools? Under the en- 
forcement of such a law as the above, it is easy to see that to 
allow the "book of common prayer," for example, upon the 
shelf of a public school library, would be an offense punishable 
by a forfeiture of all interest in the school money; but is there 
any law imposing a similar forfeiture, if instead of the book of 
common prayer, the school officials should substitute Tom 
Payne's "Age of Beason," the infidel works of Voltaire, or even 
the most licentious, obscene and soul-destroying romance that 
ever disgraced a libertine's table ? If there is any forfeiture of 
school moneys prescribed by law for the use of such books in 
the public school libraries, we trust that our friend of the 
Leader will have the goodness to tell us where it is to be found. 

It is true that the law contains some vague provisions about 
the inculcation of moral principles, but nowhere do we find a 
forfeiture of school money prescribed as a penalty for a viola- 
tion of these provisions; it is only the teaching of religion that 
the law makes a penal ofi'ense — not the teaching of irreligion. 

But suppose that the law did make it a penal ofi'ense to teach 
irreligion and immorality in the public schools, would the en- 
forcement of such a law under the present system be practi- 
cable ? In the first place, men differ very widely as to what is 
religious and what is moral, and consequently they must of 
necessity differ just as widely as to what is irreligious and im- 
moral. 

Brigham Young, with his multitude of wives, his Ioav black- 
guardism, and his beastly obscenity, as manifested in both word 
and deed, still claims to be a perfect pattern of religion and 
morality. So, likewise, the early Puritans, at the very time 
that they were burning, boring, branding, cropping, hanging, 
and banishing the poor, dissenting Quakers, styled themselves 
"The friends of religious liberty;" and, indeed, perpetrated all 
their diabolical barbarities in the sacred name of religion itself. 



82 Discussion with the "Leader." 

We have known those who would regard it as an exceedingly im- 
moral practice to drink a glass of ale, or take a social game at; 
cards, who would think nothing of backbiting, calumniating 
and blackening the reputation of their neighbors; and who 
would find quite an agreeable pastime in giving utterance to 
the foulest and most disgusting obscenity. 

Who, then, is to fix the standard of morals for our public 
schools, and pass upon the moral qualifications of the teachers ? 
Of course your answer will be " The school directors;" but, then, 
who will fix their standard of morals, and pass upon their moral 
qualification ? Why, sir, it is the public at large. 

And you, though the father of a spotless daughter, for the 
preservation of whose virtue you would Avillingly sacrifice your 
own life, have no more voice in determining what that standard 
shall be than has the foul, flesh-covered fiend who would peril 
his life for her destruction. Under our present common school 
system is this so, or is it not ? And if it is so, then with what 
propriety can you say that there is no possibility of the truth 
of the charge which we make "that the schoolroom is the spot 
wherein have been planted and nurtured into fruition the seeds 
of hypocrisy, dishonesty, infidelity," etc.? 

In further vindication of the supposed purity of the public 
schools, 3^ou tell us that the law even enumerates the books 
that must be used. Now we are heartily thankful to you, 3Ir. 
Leader, for introducing the book question. 

We have before us one of those precious books which the 
law now compels the public school children of this city to study 
as a history of the United States. A few extracts from this 
work will furnish some idea of the moral character of its au- 
thor, 

W^e quote from Lossing's Primary United States, which is the 
history required to be taught in the primary schools of San 
Francisco. On ]3age 237, this truthful history says: "Jefferson 
Davis, the wicked head of the Confederate traitors, very much 
frightened, ran away from Eichmond, with a great amount of 
gold that he and his associates had stolen from the banks and 
the people, followed by a number of those associates." 

Again, on same page, "While all the loyal people of the 
country were rejoicing because the war had so ended. President 
Lincoln, one of the best men that ever lived, was cruelly mur- 



Discussion with the "Leader." 83 

dered in Washington by a young man Idred by Ihe Confederates 
to do the wiclied deed."" 

Here follows the old slander about the disguise in female 
apparel. "Jefferson Davis," says our impartial historian, "the 
leader of the wicked rebellion, which had cost half a million of 
precious lives, and thousands of millions of money, became an 
outlaw, and a heavy sum of money was offered for his arrest. 
He was finally captured in Georgia, while fleeing for shelter to 
a swamp, disguised as a woman in his wife's clothes." 

Again, on pages 222-3, when giving the cause of the late war, 
this veracious author says: "Men in the slave States deter- 
mined to bring negroes from Africa again, and to fill some of 
the new Territories with them. The people of the free States 
declared that they should do no such thing. Bitter quarrels 
were kept up; they were stopped for a while, when great men 
from Japan, and a lad (the Prince of Wales), who expects to be 
the King of England, came here in 1860, to visit our President. 
As soon as they were gone, the old quarrel was resumed." 

Now each and every one of the above-quoted passages is not 
merely false, but so utterly and ridiculously false that we do 
not believe there can be found in the city of San Francisco a 
full-grown man or even a large-sized boy of any political per- 
suasion, from the in tensest radical down to the most compro- 
mising, cringing, time-serving, place-hunting demagogue, who 
would not be ashamed to cite it as authority. Yet the people 
of San Francisco must be loaded with taxes for the purpose of 
teaching these barefaced, unmitigated falsehoods to their chil- 
dren; and this is what they call ^'Education.''' And now, 3Ir. 
Leader, tell us candidly what do you think about this kind of 
history? 

Do you believe that Jefferson Davis was captured "while flee- 
ing from shelter to a swamp, disguised as a woman by his wife's 
clothes?" Do you believe that he "ran away from Bichmond 
with a great deal of gold, that he and his associates had stolen?" 

Do you really believe that President Lincoln was cruelly 
murdered in Washington by a young man hired by the Confed- 
erates to do the wicked deed ? 

Do you also believe, with this veracious historian, that the 
late terrible civil war originated in the fact that men in the 
slave States determined to bring negroes from Africa again and 
to fill some of the new Territories with them, and that the peo- 



84 Discussion with the "Leader." 

pie in the free States declared that they should do no such 
thing? Do you also think, Mr. Leader, that the arrival of these 
''Great men from Japan," these copper-colored, weasel-faced, 
almond-eyed Mongolians, had the eiiect of calming the gather- 
ing storm and hushing into silence tLe muttering thunders of 
war ? 

Why, what a wonderful people these Japanese must be, 
whose very presence determines the momentous question of 
peace or war, and who hold the fate of empires in the mysteri- 
ous coils of their little cues. We can very well understand 
how it is that, in the opinion of our historian, the heir-apparent 
to the crown of Great Britian sinks into the insignificance of 
the merest nobody when in the company of these "Great men 
from Japan," for the poor boy of England unfortunately hap- 
pens to be white; but we were little prepared to learn that the 
fiery and blood-loving Mars — the almighty god of war — had 
tremblingly dropped his sword and taken to flight at their ap- 
proach. 

All this miserable and contemptible twaddle, however, we 
must now accept as history , and teach it to our children as his- 
tory, or else be denounced as "an enemy to education," and 
branded as an "ignoramus," an "ass" and a "Hottentot," by 
certain foul-mouthed little journals of this city, that circulate 
free of charge, and perpetrate a most unpardonable swindle 
upon their patrons into the bargain. 

Of course, in saying this we are making no allusion to the 
Leader, but to a contemptible little sheet as far below the 
Leader in point of decency as a pig is below a prince. 

We now ask, in the name of common sense and decency, in 
the name of truth, justice and humanity, how long will the 
parents of San Francisco tamely submit, without even a remon- 
strance, to see the minds of their children poisoned with this 
infamous, libelous and nonsensical stuff? 

How long will they aid in scattering the seeds of discord, dis- 
sension, civil war and bloodshed, by permitting their child- 
ren to be taught to look upon the people of the late slave 
States as a band of thieves, robbers and assassins, whose 
very best and purest men closed their public career by stealing 
money from the Kichmond banks, and by hiring an assassin to 
take the life of President Lincoln? 

If there is in this city the father of a child so stupidly igno- 



Discussion with the "Leader.' 85 

rant as to believe these silly falsehoods, we have not a word 
to say against his teaching them to his children; bat as regards 
the thousands of parents who cannot justifj- themselves \iii- 
der the plea of ignorance, and who are nevertheless sendhig 
their children to be fed upon this foul and poisonous filth, we 
can only look upon them as ranking in infamy side by side 
with the Avretch who first penned these monstrous calumnies 
and called them iiistory. Indeed, neither the manufacturer 
nor the vender of poison is half so bad as the unnatural par- 
ent who will stand by and see his own child gulp down the 
deadly dose. We have one, and only one, apology for parents 
whose children are studying this infamous book, namely: it is a 
late edition, and heretofore they have known nothing of its 
contents. 

We do not intend, however, that San Francisco parents shall 
remain longer in ignorance of the monstrous outrage which 
they are aiding to perpetrate upon themselves, their children, 
their country and their posterity. And now, in conclusion, 
we call upon every reader of these lines, not only to ponder 
well the foregoing facts, but to bring them to the attention of 
his friends and neighbors, to talk over and discuss this crying 
evil, and endeavor to find an adequate remedy."^ 

Occidental, July 16, 18G6. 



86 Discussion with the '' Leader." 

CHAPTEEXVI. 

FALSE TEACHINGS EXCUSED BECAUSE THEEE ARE SPOTS ON THE SUN 
— THE BUSINESS OE PUPILS TO COEEECT THE EEEOES OE HISTORY.- 

The California Leader, in its issue of July 21, 1866, after art- 
fully avoiding a number of very plain interrogatories which 
we had previously propounded to that journal in a categorical 
form, touching the questions connected wfth our free school 
system, came at length to the objections which we had urged 
against some of those books which are now being used in our 
city schools for the purpose of j)oisoning the minds of our youth 
with the most absurd falsehoods which have ever found a place 
within the lids of a book. As we had anticipated, these politi- 
cal falsehoods which are now being taught as history in our 
public schools are a little too absurd to command the indorse- 
ment of our friend of the Leader. But it is necessary for him to 
say something, and he meets the question thus. He says': 

"Such faults are like spots on the sun — unfortunate, no 
doubt, but by no means destroying the general value and bene- 
ficial tendency of such works." 

These spots on the sun furnish a most convenient argument, 
truly. They are a sort of panacea; good for all diseases. Why, 
sir, if your argument is a good one, then there is not a prisoner 
in our jails, not a thief, nor a robber in our penitentiaries, 
or a condemned felon in our cells, who ought not at once to be 
set at liberty, because each and every one of these wretches 
could say of his crimes, and say with truth, no matter how black 
they might be, that they are only "like spots on the sun." 

After all, what is any crime but a spot upon the human soul? 
And what is the human soul, when considered with reference 
to its original purity, but a bright planet, destined to live on, 
and to shine in the heavens with unspeakable splendor, when 
even the sun itself shall have faded forever from the firmament. 

"Only spots on the sun." Indeed ! If this sort of logic will 
stand good in the court of heaven, then it would seem that 
Lucifer himself and all his lost legions ought to be restored to 
their celestial estates, for they could all justify under the plea 
of "spots on the sun." 

Our Leader friend even seems to think that after ajl, these 
books, seasoned with a smattering of falsehood, are the verv 
things for our schools. He says: 



Discussion with the "Leader." 87 

"To err ishaman, and the exercise of discrimination in detect- 
ing errors and blunders in a work, of great value otherwise, is 
one of the best exercises for a youthful mind under the guidance 
of experienced teachers." 

It is really difficult, 31r. Leader, to refrain from smiling in view 
of this last effort of yours to find an argument. 

We are just emerging from a four years bloody civil war; a 
war which has cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and thou- 
Bands of millions of dollars; a war which has left its bloody foot- 
prints so deeply embedded in all our social and political institu- 
tions that time itself Avill scarcely, if ever, eradicate them. And 
here is a book purporting to contain a correct history of this 
war from beginning to end. 

This book was written by a learned historian, it has been 
scrutinized and indorsed by men presumed to be educated, and 
is now placed in the hands of thousands of little girls and 
boys for their instruction. We object to the book as utterly 
false in many of its most esseutial parts; false as to the cause 
of the Avar, false as to its termination, and wickedly false as to 
the motives of those who on either side were engaged in it. You 
answer by virtually admitting the charge and claiming that the 
detection of these errors is one of the best exercises for a youthful 
mind. 

It is quite true that the detection of error is one of the best 
exercises for any mind, whether youthful or not, but are you 
not presuming a little too much on the sagacity of Young 
America, when you undertake to appeal to his judgment to set- 
tle disputed points of history. 

We have known for a long time that this was decidedly a fast 
age and a fast country, and that it was no unusual thing to meet 
with five-year old boys who fancied themselves much wiser than 
their fathers at fifty, but we had scarcely hoped to see the time 
when lisping little urchins, not safe to be trusted out of their 
baby clothes, would be expected to reverse the solemn decrees 
of history, just by way of "exercising their youthful minds." 

But if our children are so much wiser, and so much better 
versed in history than the historian himself, then why waste 
their precious time in sending them to school ? It seems to us 
that we should let them Avrite the histories, and send these igno- 
rant historians and ignorant school directors to school. 

Oh, but you say it is "under the guidance of experienced 



88 Discussion with the "Leader." 

teachers " that these errors are to be corrected. You seem, 
however, to forget that in this city the same power which ap- 
points the teacher also designates the books to be used. 

And, pray tell us, what assurance have you that the teacher will 
be a wiser or a better man, than either the historian or the 
school directors, by Avhom the teacher is appointed ? Is it not 
a very improbable story, moreover, that the board of education 
will undertake to teach the child one thing by the book, and 
just the contrary thing by the mouth of the teacher. 

Suppose that any one of the public school teachers in this city 
should undertake to tell his pupils that tliese very passages, 
which in our last article we quoted from Lossing's ' ' Primary 
History," were, what they in fact are, and what you virtually 
admit them to be, namely: a tissue of unmitigated falsehoods; 
how long, think you, would such a teacher be permitted to re- 
tain his place in the school ? How long would the school di- 
rectors allow him to tell his pupils that the book which they had 
placed in their hands as a history, was soiled by the black spots 
of political calumnies ? 

Why, sir, they would hurl him from the school-room so fast 
that he would think the day of judgment had come. 

Not the least remarkable passage in this very remarkable ar- 
ticle of the Leader, is that wherein our contemporary, after ad- 
mitting in effect the teaching of the most infamous slanders 
in the public schools of this city, triumphantly exclaims : 

"In what school, by what teacher, where and when we ask, 
can Mr. Montgomery show that hypocrisy, or dishonesty, or in- 
fidelity, or bigotry, or intolerance, or irreligion, in any shape 
has been taught in our public schools. If this can be shown, 
let it be done at once." 

Our answer is, that wherever and whenever a teacher is found 
using Lossing's Primary History in his school, there at least is 
the place where, and then is the time when, and he is the 
teacher by whom, hypocrisy, dishonesty, infidelity, bigotry, in- 
tolerance and irreligion are being taught. 

Now as for the hypocrisy, could you, Mr. Leader, imagine any- 
thing more hypocritical than to teach such a chapter of in- 
famous falsehoods as those which we quoted in our last article 
on the school question, and then conclude the lesson with a 
hymn of thanksgiving addressed to the God of All Truth. 

Yet if you will turn to the very chapter from which our quo- 



Discussion with the "Leader." 89" 

tations were takeii, you will find that it concludes with a hymn 
beginning Avitli the words : "Great God, we thank Thee," etc. 
If this is not the very climax of hypocrisy, then we should 
like to know what constitutes that crime ? 

As to irreligion, infidelity and dishonesty, if these offenses are 
not all embraced in the slandering of our neighbor, then have 
we studied the ten commandments to no purpose. 

If you have discovered apian whereby one may falsely charge 
his neighbors with larcen}^ robbery and assassination, and 
teach his children to do the same without teaching them irrelig- 
ion, immorality and dishonesty, then you should by all means 
take out a patent for the discovery. Besides realizing an im- 
mense fortune for yourself, you would doubtless send many a 
poor wretch to heaven with a falsehood in his mouth who would 
otherwise be booked for the other country.* 

*Occidental, July 30, ISGG. 



W How OUR Children are Taught. 

CHAPTER XVII. 

EXAMINATION OF A SAN FRANCISCO PRIMARY PUBLIC SCHOOL — SHEEP- 
SKINS SUPPOSED TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE BACKS OF COWS — A 
WOODEN TABLE ASCERTAINED TO BE A FOUR-FOOTED BEAST, AND 
A SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC SCHOOL-MISTRESS PRONOUNCED A QUAD- 
RUPED. 

In 1866, in tlie August number of the California Teacher, 
State Superintendent Hon. Jolin Swett's official organ, ap- 
peared an article on the subject of an examination of the pupils 
of the primary schools of San Francisco, had with a view to 
ascertaining their fitness for promotion. From the article in 
question we extract the following passages : 

" To the question, ' What great, good man do you know any- 
thing about?' they answered in every instance and with the 
greatest promptness: ' George Washington,' or 'Abraham Lin- 
coln,' and sometimes both. To the question, 'To what use 
may a cow be put,' they would generally answer, ' I don't know;' 
but when varied thus: 'What is a cow good for?' the answer 
would come promptly enough: 'Milk her; milk him! to get 
milk from. Meat to eat; to eat her up; leather; sheepskin.'" 

"When asked : ' What are used in making books?' Very many 
said: 'I don't know;' but when asked: ' How do they make 
books, or what do they make books out of?' they seemed to 
be ready with an answer. Generally those who had received 
little or no instruction in the object method could think of 
nothing but paper; but those who had been so instructed, al- 
most invariably answered : ' The skin of an animal, sheepskin, 
leather, paste-board, thin boards, types, metal; and only after 
more questioning would they mention 'paper.' As if they 
thought it only an insignificant part of a book, or considered it 
too obvious to be worth mentioning. '"' "^ '^ One bright 
little girl who had but recently entered the school, and had 
never been instructed concerniDg forms and solids, on being 
shown successively a parallelopi pedon, cylinder and pyramid, 
and required to name them, almost slioute I, with a gleam of 
triumph in her eye: "Square stick, round stick, sharp stick." 
One conversation ran thus : 

"Examiner — What is a quadruped? 

"Pupil — Anything that has four legs. 

"E — This table has four legs, is it a quadruped ? 

"P— Yes, ma'am." 

Another ran thus : 

"Examiner — What is a quadruped? 

"Pupil — Anything with two legs. 

"E — Am I a quadruped? 

"P — Yes, ma'am." 



How OUR Children are Taught. 91 

After reading the above, we almost came to the conclusion 
to abandon all further opjDOsitiou to the present public school 
system. What wonder, said we to ourselves, if parents do 
hazard the livesj of their little ones by crowding them in heaps 
into dark, damp and unhealthy cellars? What wonder if they 
do incur the danger of losing the affections of their children by 
placing them under a jurisdiction over which they have no con- 
trol? What wonder if they do risk the honor aiid the virtue, 
together with both the temporal and eternal happiness of their 
sons and daughters, when in compensation for these little sacri- 
fices such astounding intellectual developments can be obtained? 

Let us take these questions one by one, study them and learn 
wisdom. What child, we ask, who had never enjoyed the ad- 
vantages of being educated in our public primary schools 
would ever have known that sheep-skins grew on the backs of 
cows, or that books were made out of types instead of paper, 
or that either a wooden table or a San Francisco public school 
ma'am was a quadruped ? 

And, good reader, these are the mighty little intellects that 
our friend of the California Leader contends should exercise 
their minds "in detecting errors and blunders in a work of 
great value." The Leader thinks there is no danger to be 
apprehended from false books in our schools so long as such 
stupendous intellects as these are left free to grapple with their 
erroneous teachings. We suppose that it was by way of cor- 
recting some of these false notions derived from books that our 
juvenile fiiend pronounced his school-mistress a quadruped. 

If the spirit of Washington was permitted to take cognizance 
of the examination, how highly he must have felt honored when 
he heard himself pronounced a "great good man " by a youth 
who took his teacher for a quadruped, or Avlien he heard the 
same compliment coming from the mouth of that other young 
genius who looked upon a sheep-skin as the product of a cow's 
back! 

Laying all jokes aside, we unhesitatingly declare that, ac- 
cording to our dull comprehension, the most sensible answers 
above reported came from those pupils whom the writer in the 
TeOjcher undertakes to apologize for on the ground that they had 
not been itistructtd. For example, it is alleged that those who 
had received little or no instruction in the object method, 
when asked, "What do thej^ make books of?" could think of 



954 How ouB Children aee Taught. 

nothing but paper, but those who had been so instructed almost 
invariablj answered, '* the skin of an animal, sheep-skin, 
paste-board, thin boards, types, metal.; and only after more 
questioning would they mention paper — as if they thought it 
only an insignificant part of a book," etc. 

Now, let the reader ask himself, in all candor, which of the 
above two classes of answers he looks upon as the more sensi- 
ble. Are they those which came from the pupils whom our 
friend of the Teacher calls the instructed, or are they the 
answers of the uninstructed ? 

If to say that a book is made of paper indicates ignorance, 
and to claim that it is made out of "x^asteboard," or ^'tliin 
boards," or any other sort of boards; and to ignore the exist- 
ence of paper in its composition, indicates education, then, for 
once, we shall have to plead guilty to the charge which the Call 
has preferred against us, and admit that we are opposed to ed- 
ucation, and in favor of ignorance. 

Again, the leaclier says that '-one bright-eyed little girl who 
had but recently entered the school, and had never been in- 
structed concerning forms and solids, on being shown succes- 
sively a parallelopipedon, a cylinder, and a pyramid, and 
required to name them, almost shouted, with a gleam of tri- 
umph in her eye, 'square stick, round stick, sharp stick.' " 

Now, if we knew the parents of that little girl, we should 
advise them to take her at once from that school, for she cer- 
tainly has, at present, a very good common sense idea about the 
names of differently shaped sticks; but let her remain under 
the tuition of these teachers until she is '^instructed,''' and ten 
chances to one the child will become so bewildered with big 
words that she will take that same "square stick" for some 
four-footed beast, and, perhaps, leave school at the end of the 
year, fully impressed with the idea that her schoolma'am is a 
quadruped (with long ears). 

The Hon. Mr. Swett's reporter does not say how many of 
these pupils were promoted to a higher grade; we think, how- 
ever, that at least one lad was entitled to his "sheepskin;" we 
mean the youth who pronounced cows good for the production 
of that article. 

The above report goes on to say, that to the question, "how 
should young persons treat older ones ? " they (the pupils) fre- 
quently answered, "I don't know;" but when asked, "How 



How OUR Childeen are Taught, 93 

should little folks treat old people," the answers came like sticks 
out of pop-guns: "Good; nice; give e'm something to eat; give 
'em a knife and fork; be kind to 'em; never throw any stones; 
mdke'jnoneiioidofem.'''' Only one little fellow out of a class 
of sixty pupils, that had been uncommonly well drilled in ob- 
ject teaching, used the word "respect," and he used it in the 
plural. 

Now is it not a noteworthy fact that among the whole enum- 
erated series of answers to this question touching the treatment 
proper to be extended to old persons, there was but a single 
one who recognized the aged man or woman as entitled to any 
better treatment than would be due to them if they belonged to 
the brute creation? Treat them " good," says one; and so he 
Avould say if speaking of horses or cows, instead of human be- 
ings. "iV^ice," says another, and he would say the same if they 
were dogs. " Give them sometliing to ea^," replies a third; Avhy 
if they were swine, whose heaven was to be found in a swill- 
tub, he could have said no less. ' ' Make money out of ^em, " cries 
a fourth, and that boy certaiuhj ought to have his diploma, for 
ho has learned what a vast proportion of mankind, in these days, 
seem to regard as the ultimate object of life. 

" Only one out of sixty used the word 'respect,'" If, then, 
it is true that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth 
speaketh," how many of these pupils respect the fathers and 
mothers that called them into existence ? 

The above paragraph furnishes the answer: only one in sixty! 
And what right, we are curious to know, have parents to expect 
that their children will be taught at school to treat them with 
respect, when educated under a system whose fundamental law, 
as interpreted by the courts, declares that '^ the vulgar wrpres- 
sion that i^arents have a legal 7nght to dictate toteachers, is entirely 
erroneous ? " 

And since parents have no right to dictate to the teachers of 
their own children, where, we ask, is their remedy when they 
find themselves occupying in the minds and hearts of their little 
ones a place upon a level with the horses, and cattle, and swine, 
and other quadrupeds that graze upon the fields, and whose 
ultimate and highest destiny is to have money made out of 
them ?^ 

^Occidental, August 20 and 27, 186G. 






94 Discussion with the "American Flag." 

CHAPTER XVIII. 

THE "flag" on the "OCCIDENTAL" AND COMMON SCHOOLS. 

The editor of the Flag in his issue of Wednesday, Sept. 14, 
1866, while referring to an article in the Occidental, which he 
had never read, says : 

" Zach Montgomery's barbarous sheet should be indicted or 
otherwise abated as a public nuisance. A late number, as we 
are informed, has an article intended to show that the tendency 
of our public school system is to induce and promote child- 
murder. This is horrible. Such abominably obscene slanders 
ought not to be suffered. Such a flagrant insult to an enlight- 
ened community, and so cruel a wanton calumny of school girls 
should be properly resented by their natural protectors." 

To the above we replied, as follows : Now, if the editor of 
the Flag were just half as fair and honest as he is talented, and 
if he were one-quarter part as active in promoting the peace, 
harmony and good order of society as he has been in organizing 
mobs, and in stirring up bitterness, hatred and ill-will amongst 
his neighbors, he would not have penned such a criticism as 
the above upon an article which, according to his own showing, 
he had never read. 

The child-murder to which we particularly referred, as all 
know who read the article in question, took place in the State 
of Massachusetts. Had we, however, seen proper to arraign 
the public schools of this city for trial upon a similar charge, 
we should have found on file among the archives of our city 
criminal court a bill of indictment already drawn up in due 
form of law, with the sign-manual of the foreman of the grand 
jury, thereto duly affixed. Not only that, but the very first 
witness we should call to the stand, in support of this indict- 
ment, would be no less a personage than the veritable Hag 
editor himself. 

Perhaps, Mr. Flag, you have forgotten a certain report 
made by a committee of Grand Jurymen, appointed to visit 
and inspect the public schools of this city, in the month of 
April last, to which report you yourself made an approving 
reference in your issue of April 28 ? Well, if you have forgotten 
it, we have not. 

This report, which appears in full in the Alta of May 7, 
among other things, says (we italicise the letters ourselves) : 



Discussion with the "Amekican Flag." 95 

"At the corner of Broadway and 31ontgomery streets, ive found 450 
"children absohUeJ// stoiced one upon another in a bnildiug, into 
" which not sufficient ventilation and light are admitted to sustain 
"even life; and this is hut a fair sample of tvhat loe witnessed on 
" Tehama, Third, Silver, Stockton, Post and Eighth streets.'' 

Now, we sliould like to inquire of our friend of the Flag, 
whether the stowing of 450 children, one upon the other in a 
building into which "not sufficient ventilation and light are 
admitted to sustain even life," does or does not have a "ten- 
dency to promote child-murder?" What do you say, Mr. Editor? 
Do you know any difference between murdering a child and 
tilling it by depriving it of breath? Do not now turn round, 
and take issue with the Grand Jurymen, and call upon a mob 
to "abate them as a nuisance;" for, if you do, your own turn 
may come nest. It is no longer ago than the twenty-eighth 
day of last April, when you, sir, wrote as follows touching the 
terrible and child-murdering condition of these very same 
school-houses. In the Flag of that date, we find the following: 

"In several localities it seems as though it were impossible 
to crowd so many children in a building. On Tehama street, 
in one room twelve feet in width and twenty in length, from 
sixty to eighty little boys and girls were packed, with scarcely 
any ventilation and no yard to play in; others are in the same 
condition." 

Such is the recent language of a newspaper, which now pro- 
nounces it an " abominably obscene slander" to charge that 
"the tendency of our public school system is to induce and 
promote child murder."* 

* Occidental, September 17, 1866. 



96 How ouK Public School Histories are Made. 

CHAPTER XIX. 

how our public school histories are made. 

Heretofore we took occasion to animadvert upon the fact, that 
*'Lossing's Primary United States" — a book being used as a 
history in the public schools of this city — was, so far as the 
same related to the recent disastrous war, a tissue of the most 
absurd, ridiculous and revolting falsehoods. As a specimen of 
its monstrous calumnies we cited a paragraph from page 237, 
which reads as follows: 

"While all the loyal people ©f the country were rejoicing be- 
cause the war had so ended, President Lincoln, one of the best 
men that ever lived, was cruelly murdered in Washington, by a 
young man hired by the Confederates to do the wicked deed." 

Now, if the reader will only take the pains to peruse the re- 
cent report of the Hon. A. J. Bogers, member of the congres- 
sional judiciary committee, touching the alleged assassination 
plot, he will then be able to see the foul and diabolical tissue 
of perjuries whereon this calumny rests for its authority. 

Who, then, are the witnesses upon whose veracity Mr. Los- 
sing charges that "the Confederates hired Booth to assassinate 
President Lincoln?" 

At the head of the list stands one Sanford Conover, with no 
less than three aliases, who upon one occasion swears upon the 
holy Evangelists that his name is Conover, and on another occa- 
sion that his name is not Conover, but James W. Wallace. 

He denied under oath in Canada all that he had stated under 
oath in Washington, and offers $500 reward for the arrest of 
what he correctly calls "the infamous, perjured scoundrel," 
who had personated him, "under the name of Sanford Con- 
over," and deposed to a tissue of falsehoods before the Military 
Commission at Washington, when, lo! and behold! it turns out, 
upon his own admission, that he, himself, is that same identi- 
cal "perjured scoundrel," for whose arrest he offers the reward. 
Very properly might Mr. Eogers remark, as he does in his re- 
port, that "Conover having finally admitted that he and Wallace 
were one man with two names, and Wallace swearing that Con- 
over is a scoundrel whose testimony before the Military Com- 
mission was but a tissue of falsehoods, might well relieve me 
from all analysis of testimony given by him, until such crime 



How OUR Public School Histories are Made. 97 

as perjury in one of two courts, delivered from any motive, be- 
comes a certificate of truth-telling in the other." 

The next witness that Mr. Lossing would place upon the 
stand is the perjured Merritt, who now not only swears that his 
testimony going to implicate the Confederates in (he assassina- 
tion-plot, was false; but he further testifies that he had received 
in actual pay, through government ofiicials, the sum of $6000, 
in consideration of the perjury. 

Another of Lossing's witnesses, who calls himself William 
Campbell, now swears that his entire evidence was false, and 
that government money paid to him by Judge Advocate Holt 
himself, was his motive for the perjury. 

A fourth witness, upon whom Lossing relies for the truth of 
this infamous charge, is Snevel, who now swears that his "evi- 
dence was false from beginning to end." He says: " Conover 
wrote it out, and I learned it by heart. I made it to make 
money. I received $375 from Holt," etc. (See Roger's report 
published in Occidental and Vanguard, October 1, 1866.) 

Now it is upon the unsupported testimony of these self-con- 
victed perjurers — the horrible blackness of whose memory is 
destined for all time to come to relieve the hitherto unparal- 
leled infamy of a Titus Gates — that Dr. Benson J. Lossing 
has undertaken to publish it to the world, and particularly to 
the youth of the United States, as a fact of history, that Booth 
was hired by the Confederates to assassinate Mr. Lincoln. 

Notwithstanding the fact that these miserable perjuries are 
now^ laid bare, and that the innocence of the contemplated victim 
of their infernal plot is placed beyond question, still these same 
damnable falsehoods are being daily taught in our public 
schools as historical facts. 

The board of education of this city have adopted "Lossing's 
Primary United States," with all of its purchased falsehoods and 
foul perjuries, as the history for the public schools of this city, 
and to aggravate the evil still more, the law requires a class-book 
once adopted to remain in use for four years' time. For the 
next four years, then, must the people of this city pay for teach- 
ing to their children, as true, that which they know in their hearts 
is a most base, wicked and malicious falsehood. The strangest 
part of the business is, that those who are instrumental in 
perpetrating this foul wrong upon our children and our coun- 
try, who are teaching the rising generation in one section to re- 



98 How ouB Public School Histobies are Made. 

gard the people in another section as assassins and friends of 
assassins, are the same persons who all the while prate loudly 
about their love for the Union. Is it by vilifying, slandering 
and blackening the reputation of their neighbors, that they ex- 
pect to restore peace, harmony, brotherly love and good neigh- 
borhood to our distracted States and people ? 

If malicious falsehoods and foul perjuries constitute the 
proper cement wherewith to unite the now broken and discord- 
ant fragments of our once glorious old Union, then, indeed, 
will America owe a proud monument to the memory of Joseph 
Holt, Sandford Oonover, William Campbell, the infamous Mer- 
ritt, and the perjured Snevel. Should such a monument ever 
be erected, we sincerely trust that Dr. Benson J. Lossing will 
have the honor of delivering the oration upon the occasion of 
laying the corner-stone of that wonderful structure.* 

*Occidental, October 1, 1866. 



Educational Query. ^9 



CHAPTER XX. 

EDUCATIONAL QUERY — SHOULD WE SEND OUR CHILDREN TO LEARN 
DECENCY AND PROPRIETY FROM A TEACHER "WHO HIMSELF NEITHER 
KNOWS NOR PRACTICES THESE VIRTUES ? 

The following is from the Call of Wednesday, September 21, 
1866: 

"The Dashaway Society is an organization which labors 
zealously for the improvement of the moral and mental tone of 
society; to accomplish this end it strives to secure frequently 
the services of men to lecture upon interesting subjects. A 
standing rule of the society is to eschew from its debates or 
lectures all questions of a partisan, political or sectarian nature, 
and it invariably requires those who lecture to avoid the dis- 
cussion of all such questions in their discourses. One Pro- 
fessor K , an advocate of muscular Clnistianity, was en- 
gaged to lecture before the society last Sunday evening. He 
insulted the society and violated its rules by rushing into 
partisanism. There are some men who do not seem to know 
enough to avoid violating the rules of propriety and common 
decency. Such are the men who on every occasion must lug 
in subjects upon which they are dazed, and which are by posi- 
tive as well as conventional rules excluded. * * * Jq 
selecting lecturers the society should select men who have 
enough respect for the society and sufficient common sense not 
to violate established rules, and outrage propriety and common 
decenc}^ by introducing subjects unfitted for the place and 
occasion." 

We most cordially concur in the above strictures so liberally 
dealt out by our friend of the Call, touching the outrageous 
conduct of Professor K. on the occasion referred to, but then 
who is this Professor K., "the advocate of muscular Christi- 
anity," who, as the Call says, insulted the society, and violated 
its rules by rushing into partisanism? Why this distinguished 
professor is no less a personage than the principal of one of 
the public schools of San Erancisco, one who has been selected 
by our honorable board of education, on account of his natural 
intelligence, his learning, his morality, and especially on accout 
of his sense of propriety, love of discipline, and strict regard 
for the observance of rules, to train, instruct and discipline the 
minds of our children. If it is true, as the Call in effect charges, 
that Professor K. does not "know enough to avoid violating 
the rules of propriety and common decency," can it be ex- 



100 Educational Query, 

pected — we ask iu all candor — that lie will teach his pupils how 
they are to "avoid violating the rules of propriety and common 
decency ?" In other words, is it to be expected that Professor 
K. will teach his pupils that which he himself does not know? 
Does our friend of the Call ever reflect that the influence of 
such a man as Mr. K. is infinitely worse when wielded from a 
professor's chair than when employed in a public lecture-room, 
as on the occasion in question ? 

"We had not the honor of being present at Dashaway Hall 
when the learned professor delivered himself of his political 
balderdash, but we are informed by those who were present on 
that occasion, that some twenty or thirty persons had the good 
sense, in the midst of his bigoted, partisan utterances, to rise 
from their seats and leave the hall. But suppose that these 
persons, instead of being full-grown ladies and gentlemen, at- 
tending a public lecture as a matter of choice, had been little girls 
and boys attending a public school, as a matter of compulsion. 
Does any one doubt that a similar manifestation of good sense 
on their part would have subjected them to the visitation of the 
lash, if not to a disgraceful expulsion from the school itself ? 

But there is another marked difference between the effect pro- 
duced by lecturing in a public hall, to an audience of adults, 
and the teaching of little children at school. In the former 
case, the auditors being persons of mature and cultivated minds, 
receive what is said more as critics than as pupils. They have 
their respective standards of right and wrong, of propriety and 
impropriety, of good taste and bad taste, already erected. 
Every sentence which drops from the lips of the speaker is 
measured by their several standards, and is either accepted or 
rejected accordingly. 

Not so, however, with the pupil at school. He sits there, not 
to judge, but to be judged; not to criticize, but to be criticized; 
not to rebuke the teacher for failing to act up to his standard ol 
propriety, but to be rebuked by the teacher whenever he fails 
to adopt his (the teacher's) standard as his own. With the 
pupil at school, the word of the teacher stands as the supreme 
law. 

Hon. John Swett, in his biennial report, quotes authority to 
prove that, while the child is at school, he must regard neither 
parent nor prince as above his teacher. 

The consequence is, that while occupying a teacher's chair, 



Educational Query. 101 

Professor K. maj, in the presence of his pupils, "vio- 
\ate established rules and outrage propriety and common de- 
cency by introducing subjects unfitted for the place and the 
occasion," and all with the most perfect impunity. He may 
teach every child in his school to be as reckless, with regard to 
decency and propriety, as himself; and yet the very persons 
who, nest to the children themselves, are the first and the most 
keenly affected by his pernicious and wicked instruction — name- 
ly, the fathers and mothers of the children — have no remedy 
for the evil. If they undertake to say to their children that the 
teacher is in fault, that he does not understand the rules of 
"decency and propriety," the chances are ten to one that the 
children — if they do not say so in words — will conclude in their 
own minds that their jmrents are themselves igitorani dolts, whose 
education must have been sadly neglected, for the very reason 
that tJieij never had ''Professor K." for a teacher. And yet, 
when we undertake to complain of the workings of an educa- 
tional system which compels parents to either forfeit their inter- 
est in the school money and bring up their children in ignor- 
ance, or else send them to be taught good morals and good 
manners by a teacher whom the Call charges with outraging, for 
the want of sense, "the rules of propriety and common decency;" 
this same Call, with a most singular want of consistency, turns 
round and brands us as an enemy to education. '^^ 

*Occidmtal, September 24, 18G6. 



102 Lincoln School Patriotism. 

OHAPTEE XXI. 

PUPILS OP THE LINCOLN SCHOOL MATCHING THEOUGH GEORGIA. 

The October number, 1866, of tlie organ of the State Super- 
intendent of Public Instruction, in reviewing the condition of 
the Lincoln school in this city, when speaking of the daily ex- 
ercises of the pupils, says. "When assembled they sing 
'Marching through Georgia' with a vim characteristic of pat- 
riots." Now, as to the patriotic character of the song referred 
to, much depends upon thd standpoint from which it is viewed. 
If true patriotism consists in stimulating those feelings of ill- 
will, bitter hatred and undying animosity, the seeds of which 
have been sown by tbe hand of fanaticism, plowed by the bomb- 
shells of war, and watered by the blood of a nation and the 
tears of numberless widows and orphans, then, indeed, will we 
agree that 'Marching through Georgia' is a most patriotic song; 
but, on the other hand, if true patriotism dictates the propriety 
of burying the recollection of past difficulties, of cultivating 
sentiments of fraternal affection, and binding up the fresh and 
smarting wounds of our lacerated and bleeding country, we are 
in that event at a loss to know upon what claim of right the 
song above referred to can be termed a patriotic song. 

If we are going to teach our little ones to celebrate, in tune- 
ful exultation, the capture of New Orleans, the fall of Vicks- 
burg, or Sherman's March through Georgia, will not the youth 
of the South soon learn to answer back by singing the victories 
of Shiloh, Fredericksburg, Chancellorsville, Coal Harbor, Ball's 
Bluffs, and the glory of two Bull Ptuns. 

Should the families of two brothers or two neighbors unfor- 
tunately disagree, quarrel, fight and spill blood, does any one 
suppose that a true and genuine reconciliation could ever be 
effected by means of a continual recurrence to the scenes of 
strife and bloodshed through which they had passed during the 
period of their alienation ? Does any one believe that the man 
who under any pretext whatever, killed his neighbor's cattle, 
fired his barn, burned down his dwelling and slaughtered his 
children, can afterwards make friends with that neighbor by 
singing, or teaching his children to sing peans in honor of 
these bloody triumphs? Will the rising armies of southern 
orphans love any better the star-spangled banner by being con- 
stantly reminded of the fact, that it has once waved in triumph 



Lincoln School Patriotism. 103 

over their desolated fields, conflagrated cities, and the mangled 
corpses of their dead fathers, uncles, brothers and friends? 
Will the youths of Georgia feel for the youths of California a 
deeper glow of affection when they learn that the latter delight 
in nothing so much, as in singing the praises of those military 
achievements which have converted their happy homes into 
heaps of smouldering ruins, and turned to ghastly, grinning 
skeletons, the sweet smiling faces of those, whom above all 
earthly beings they most dearly loved ? 

Away with all such silly nonsense — such blood-bedizened 
patriotism. 

For ourselves we have never belonged to that school of polit- 
ical theorists who look upon the sword as an instrument of 
union. Peter used his ^word to cut off the ear of an adversary, 
but it required an almighty miracle of charity to replace that 
ear, and thus restore the union which the sword had destroyed. 
So with our unfortunate country, the sword has cut asunder all 
those kindly feelings and fraternal affection which once formed 
the cohesive power of the Union. And nothing short of a mir- 
acle of charity on the part both of the North and South, can 
ever restore the once amicable relations of our now divided 
sections."^ 

* Occidental, October 15, 1866. 



I 



104 Discussion with the "Napa Kegister." 

CHAPTER XXII. 

THE '*NAPA EEGISTER" ON PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND PUBLIC SCHOOL- 

TEACHEES — NO JEFFERSONIAN DEMOCRAT NEED APPLY. 

Some time ago tlie Napa Register contained an article on the 
school question which did us great injustice, inasmuch as it to- 
tally misrepresented our position. It was too important a mat- 
ter for us to permit to pass uncorrected, although we honestly 
supposed that the mistakes committed were unintentionalj re- 
sulting more from relying upon hearsay on the part of the 
editor of the Register than from a careful personal examination 
of the columns of the Occidental. We reviewed at some length 
the statements of the Register, correcting the errors into which it 
had fallen, and defining our position as clearly as language 
could do it. Still that paper, in the face of our expressed dec- 
laration, seeks to find a bugbear with which to frighten or 
amuse its readers, we scarcely know which. It had, in its issue 
of January 14, 1865, another long article — half apologetic and 
partly fault-finding. It confesses that it misinterpreted our 
position, but still insists that we desire a division of the school 
fund for sectarian purposes. For the purpose of showing our 
readers the miserable shifts to which our opponents have to re- 
sort in combating our position, we reproduce the extract copied 
from our article by the Register, to prove that we have sectarian 
ends in view. The Register introduces the extract with the fol- 
lowing comments : 

"The following extract will show that we were not altogether 
wrong in supposing that he wished to have a portion of the 
school fund applied to the support of sectarian schools. We 
only erred in not saying sectarian schools of all sorts, and all 
other schools." 

Now here is the extract : 

"The principle which we have contended for is, that all 
parents, whether they belong to any religious denomination or 
not, are entitled by nature, and should be allowed by law, to 
select the teacher or teachers who are to be entrusted with the 
education of their children. We likewise maintain that every 
teacher should be held entirely responsible to the parents of his 
pupils for the manner in which he performs his professional 
duties, no matter whethersuch parents be Catholics, Protestants, 



Discussion with the "^Napa Kegistek." 105 

Jews or unbelievers; aud further, that the proprietors of ever}^ 
school, when conducted according to such general legal regula- 
tions as shall not conflict with these principles should be entitled 
to a remuneration out of the school fund, proportionate to the 
number of pupils Avho attend such school; nor would we have 
any teacher deprived of his pay on account of his opinions upon 
either political or religious questions." 

It would seem almost unnecessary for us to make any com- 
ment on the foregoing; but, strange as it may appear, the editor 
of the Register uses this extract as a text for a long article to 
show that our purposes are sectarian. He admits that there is 
a great show of justice in our statement of our position, but 
cannot concede that the justice is real. His logic is about this: 
The Occidental contends that all parents, whether they belong 
to any religious denomination or not, are entitled by nature, 
and should be allowed by law, to select the teacher or teachers 
who are to be entrusted with the education of their children; 
therefore the Occw^eritoZ is sectarian. Sublime logic, truly! If 
we had been permitted to dictate what extract the Eeglster 
should take from our article, we certainly would have selected 
the very one which was chosen, and we cheerfully welcome our 
contemporary to al],the capital to be made out of it. Satisfying 
himself of our sectarianism, he declares that " it is not the true 
policy of the State to foster religious sects, or favor or perpetu- 
ate any or all of them." Now it is not our business nor do we 
intend to stop and discuss the relative merits or demerits of all 
or any of the different religious sects, but we propose simply to 
inquire what is the true policy of the State on this school ques- 
tion : It is evidently to mature a plan of education which will 
redound to the benefit of all the children in the State. It is 
idle to say that the public schools are open to all, aud if chil- 
dren do not attend it is the parents' fault. Every parent wishes 
to educate his children. If he does not educate them, the fail- 
ure is, as a rule, on account of some difficulty beyond his 
control. A large number of the children do not attend the 
public schools, and there is a considerable number who attend 
no school at all. 

Now, why is this? Manifestly because the common schools 
are not satisfactory to the parents. They have objections to 
them which induce them to keep their children away, and 
either send them to private schools, if they are able, or keep 



106 Discussion with the "Napa Eegistee." 

them at home, if unable. The policy of the State should then 
be to remove the obstacles which prevent the attendance of so 
large a proportion of children; and, as the dissatisfaction is 
evidently with the system under which the schools are con- 
ducted, we know of no way by which the difficulty may be 
avoided, but to place the matter within the control of parents, 
where it belongs. 

In the article referred to, there is a remarkable admission 
made by the Begister, touching the nature of the oath pre- 
scribed for teachers. Beferring to a charge which we have re- 
peatedly made, to the effect that democrats were proscribed 
from teaching in the public schools, because of their unwilling- 
ness to take an oath in violation of their honest convictions, 
and revolting to their sense of honor, patriotism and fidelity to 
the Constitution of their country, the Register says : 

* ' That this oath excludes from the position of public teacher all 
who indorse the resolutions drawn hy Thomas Jefferson in 1798, 
and known as the Kentuchy Resolutions, is most true." 

He then proceeds to argue the justice of this proscription, 
upon the ground that Jefferson's resolutions were "disloyal." 
So that Thomas Jefferson, the author of the declaration of 
American independence, and one of the profoundest statesmen, 
purest patriots and brightest intellects that ever adorned the 
presidential office, would, if now alive, stand disqualified in 
the eye of the law to teach even a primary public school in the 
State of California; and that, too, because of his political senti- 
ments. Only those who like George the III can look upon the 
illustrious patriot as a traitor; are by law qualified to teach the 
young idea how to shoot. Yerily, verily, this is a glorious 
public school system of ours. How devotedly, too, must the 
children of Jeffersonian democracts, when taught in these 
schools, learn to love, honor and obey their fathers and 
mothers."^ 

* Occi(ierafaZ, February 4, 1865. 



Fkom the Public School to the City Prison. 107 
CHAPTEE XXIII. 

FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOL TO THE CITY PRISON. 

The Alta of Friday, October 7, 1866, contained the following: 

"For some time past there has been much complaint of the 
practice of robbing little schoolbo3^s by reprobate boys in dif- 
ferent public schools. It has become quite a common thiug 
for a small boy to be set upon, on his way home from school, 
and robbed of his books and everything of value in his pockets, 
by larger boys, who, from long practice, have acquired a dex- 
terity in the line, not second to that exhibited by the jayhawk- 
ers of the Barbary coast. There is much complaint also by the 
small children attending the Broadway School, of the depreda- 
tions of the colored boys attending school near by, some of 
whom do not hesitate to openly seize and carry off anything 
they can lay their hands on. Last evening, officer Hoyt arrested 
two boys who attend the Lincoln School, and two from other 
schools, for robbing a little boy of the contents of his pockets, 
including some money, and a number of toys, and his books 
and satchel, as he was going home after scliool. The practice 
has become an exceedingly common one, and it is to be hoped 
that an example will be made which will put an end to it at 
once." 

There are several facts contained in the above brief item of 
police intelligence, which imperatively demand the most earnest 
consideration of every parent whose children attend the public 
schools of this city. The first of these facts to which we pro- 
pose to advert, is that the crime of robbery among the pupils of 
the public schools is one of ordinary occurrence. 

Says the Alta : "It has become quite a common thing for a 
small boy to be set upon on his way home from school, and 
robbed of his books and everything valuable in his pockets." 

It further appears that these juvenile thieves and pickpock- 
ets are not confined to a single school, but that, from the col- 
ored school upon or near Broadway, up to the grand and pala- 
tial Lincoln school -house which counts its pupils by the thou- 
sand, the work of pillage and robbery goes bravely on. Negro 
pupils and white pupils, too, seem to vie with each other in 
these innocent and patriotic pastimes. These are some of the 
sweet-scented lads that Brother Swett tells us, "sing Marching 
Through Georgia, with a vim characteristic of young patriots.'' 

This is the kind of education for which San Francisco is now 
paying at the rate of something like half a million of dollars 



108 Feom the Public School to the City Prison. 

per annum. If it is true that evil communications corrupt good 
manners, then what in the name of heaven, we ask, is to be- 
come of the thousands of the now innocent little girls and boys 
of San Francisco, who are daily and hourly associating with 
the vilest of the vile? 

If these children go to school with thieves, return with 
thieves, study and recite their lessons with thieves, and enjoy 
their accustomed sports with thieves, who can wonder if in due 
course of time they themselves learn to be thieves ? 

The greater danger to be apprehended from allowing young 
children to associate with these crime-steeped wretches arises 
from the fact that the latter belong to the larger class of pupils. 
Young children whose principles and habits are not yet formed 
naturally look to their seniors for counsel and esample. Let 
the parent who doubts this proposition revert for one moment 
to his own school-boy days, and recall the time when the word 
of a senior pupil was only second to that of the teacher him- 
self. 

If the elder students play truant, the younger ones will soon 
learn to play truant also. If the larger boys steal apples, rob 
watermelon patches, and get off practical jokes on the teacher, 
the small boys will not be long in tendering their valuable 
services in aid of all such enterprises. 

So likewise if a lad of fifteen summers pick the pockets of a 
boy twelve years old, and the same thing is repeated until, in 
the language of the AUa, the " practice has become an exceed- 
ingly common one," who can wonder if that twelve-year-old boy 
undertake in turn to get even by robbing some other lad still 
younger and weaker than himself ? 

Indeed the whole theory of modern politics as taught both in 
governmental circles and public schools, seems to rest upon the 
proposition that might makes right, and that the strong are per- 
fectly justifiable in preying upon the weak. 

Four pupils in one day promoted from the public school-room 
to the city prison after having perfected themselves in those 
highly popular and lucrative accomplishments of pocket-picking 
and brigandism, is certainly pretty good for San Francisco. 

If it is true — and nobody can deny the fact — that every thief, 
pickpocket and freebooter in San Francisco, has the same voice 
as the most honest of voters in saying .who shall be our school 
directors; and if, as a natural consequence, it turns out just as 



Feom the Public School to the City Prison. 109 

the Bulletin of the 26tli ult. clearly intimates is the case iu this 
city, that a majority of these directors are themselves no better 
than they ought to be, what can be expected of pupils trained 
up under the influence of teachers chosen, rules prescribed, and 
books selected b}' such directors. 

We have heretofore ventured the assertion that there was not 
a sane man in San Francisco, who would be williug that the 
good or bad training of his dog should depend upon the uncer- 
tain result of a municipal election in this city, and no one has 
ever dared to join issue iipon the proposition. Then is it not 
strange, passing strange, that fathers and mothers who love 
their children with a devotion that never tires, an ardor that 
never cools, and whose happiness for time and hopes for eter- 
nity depend in no small degree upon the proper education of 
their children, will hazard that education upon an event upon 
which they would not risk even the training of a dog?^^ 

*Occidental, October 15, 1860. 



110 A Peactical Illustration. 



CHAPTEE XXIV. 

A PEACTICAL ILLUSTEATION OF THE AYOEKINGS OF THE ANTI-PA- 
EENTAL SYSTEM — A TEACHEE EEFUSES TO ALLOW A PUPIL TO SEE 
HEE DYING MOTHEE. 

Linn 0. Doyle, writing from San Francisco to tlie Stockton 
Herald, iu October, 1866, reveals a striking example of the 
fiendish barbarity of an educational system which, ignoring pa- 
rental authority, transfers the guardianship and control of the 
child into the hands of strangers. In the name of God and 
humanity, we ask the blind votaries of our present anti-parental 
common school system, to carefully read and seriously reflect 
upon the following simply told, but terrible narrative. The 
correspondent referred to, says : 

"A curious, or rather a horrible code of laws govern our 
public schools — here is the story: A widowed mother, failing 
with consumption day by day, had two children, one about six, 
and the other a girl twelve years old; the youngest she kept at 
home with her, and the eldest attended a public school near 
their residence. About eleven o'clock of the day, the mother 
felt the cold, icy hand of death stealing slowly over her form. 
She drew a little table to the bedside, and wrote an excuse to 
the school teacher, which she sent with the youngest child, and 
requested her daughter to come home immediately. The child 
was detained at the school for some time, but finally returned 
to the mother. The school teacher would not let the girl leave 
the school, for it was against the rules. Again the mother 
dispatched the youngest, with the word to the teacher that she 
was ill — dying, and wanted to see her child. The youngest was 
kept for a long time again, and the teacher again refused to let 
the girl leave the school. After the school was dismissed, the 
teacher accompanied the child home, perhaps to reprimand the 
mother for making a request so much against the rules. The 
child and the teacher entered the room where the mother lay. 
The mother's tongue was silenced forever; it was paralyzed with 
death; a look from her dying eyes, and a gentle pressure from 
her hands, and mother and child parted forever on earth — she 
was dead. Where should fall the censure? Upon the school 
directors, or on the school teacher for want of common human- 
ity? This is stated as we can tell it; but let imagination dwell 
with that dying mother for a few moments, longing, watching 
for her child's footsteps, her words of instruction swelling her 
heart, the loving embrace of her eldest-born Avanted to soothe 
her spirit ere it entered the portals of eternity. Coldly, cru- 
elly detained by the rules of a school iu this Christian age. 



A Practical Illusteation. Ill 

Christian age ! such acts equal the dark days of ignorance and 
superstition." ^ 

Who can read the above touching narrative without feeling 
that there is something wrong, vitally, radically, terribly wrong, 
in a system of education which, while professing to train the 
mind and heart of the child in the way they should go, could 
thus force that child into so unnatural as well as unwilling an 
attitude of defiance to maternal authority; and that, too, at the 
very last and most awful moment in the whole round of earthly 
existence. 

Well might the HeraMs correspondent inquire, "Where 
should fall the censure ?" For ourselves we find no difficulty 
in answering the question. The censure should fall upon every 
willing supporter of the present common school system as now 
organized in this State. Under existing laws the moment the 
child enters the public school the authority of the teacher 
begins, and that same moment does the authority of the parent 
cease. It must be remembered that Superintendent Swett 
maintains the proposition that parents have no remedy against 
the teachers, and that: 

"As a general thing the only persons who have a legal right 
to give orders to the teacher are his employers, namely, the 
committee in some States, and in others the directors or 
trustees. If his conduct is approved by his employers the 
parents have no remedy as against him or them." (See Swett's 
Biennial Eeport, 1864, page 166.) 

And we must not forget that this same superintendent has 
said that : 

" The vulgar impression that 'parents have a legal right to dictate 
to teachers is entirely erroneous.^' 

Here, then, we find the great and terrible mistake made by 
this unfortunate mother. When on the fatal morning in ques- 
tion she sent her little daughter to school she no doubt 
cherished "the vulgar impression" that a dying mother would 
*'have a legal right" to recall her own daughter from the 
school-room at least long enough to impress upon her tender 
brow a mother's parting kiss and leave with her the last tender 
words of parental counsel that she should ever hear. 

This poor mother had forgotten that she had surrendered her 
child to a corporation; and that corporations not only have no 



112 A Peactical Illustration. 

souls, but not so much as that instinctive parental love which 
characterizes the vilest insect that crawls. She had forgotten 
that in the public school-room the teacher's authority ^yas para- 
mount, and that she was not recognized as having any more, nor 
even as much, control over her own daughter while there, as 
would the most worthless scamp in the land who could com- 
mand a vote on election day.* 

* Occidental, November 12, 1866. 



Boston and San Feancisco. 113 

CHAPTEE XXY. 

boston and SAN FEANCISCO. 

There are thousands of people in San Francisco who sin- 
cerely believe, or seem to believe, that no higher eulogy can 
possibly be paid to San Francisco, either socially, intellect- 
ually, morally, religiously or otherwise, than to compare it to 
the city of Boston. 

If one of our ministers succeeds in drawing crowded houses, 
they say: "He is a regular Boston preacher." If a merchant 
is prosperous in trade, he acquires the reputation of being a 
"perfect Bostonian for business." If a beautiful lady is the 
subject of conversation, we are told that "she looks just like a 
Boston belle." Let our educational system be called in ques- 
tion, and we are at once pointed to Boston as furnishing the 
model after which our public schools have been formed. 

On the twenty-second September, 1864, the Eev. Dr. Bel- 
lows, in an address delivered on the occasion of the dedi- 
cation of the Bush-«treet Grammar School in this city, among 
other things, said: 

"I feel as if that long voyage that lies between me and the 
Atlantic States were abolished, for I find myself in the midst of 
this assembly, as it were, in old Boston again- — -a copy of one of 
her beautiful school-houses before me, and the familiar scenes 
around me, which I have so often witnessed in the city of my 
boast, and pride, and birth — Boston — for twenty-five years of 
life in New York have not sufficed to wean me from the mater- 
nal breast from which I nursed the early milk of education, of 
liberty, of patriotism, of life. And, therefore, it is with pride 
and joy that I see a Boston school-house erected here in the 
midst of San Francisco; and not only a Boston school-house, 
but I see Boston men about me, and Boston children before 
me, and Boston ideas, and Boston hopes, and Boston patriot- 
ism, gleaming in the eyes and faces of all these youth that rep- 
resent Young America and Young California. [Applause.] I 
say Boston, not because there are not other just as good parts 
of the country — as Cincinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, Philadel- 
phia or New York — but they are all represented by the word 
•Boston.'" 

Now, we agree in a measure with Dr. Bellows, so far at least 
as their educational system is concerned, that the cities of Cin- 
cinnati, Chicago, St. Louis, Philadelphia, New York, and even 
San Francisco, are all represented by that word " Boston." 

8 



114 Boston and San Francisco. 

Before we can give expression to our great joy at finding in 
our midst these Boston ideas and Boston hopes, etc., which his 
reverence sees gleaming in the eyes and faces of these youths, 
we propose to inquire a little into the nature, kind and char- 
acter of these hopes and ideas for which Boston has become so 
renowned. 

In order to show the results of the Boston school system 
upon society, and particularly on the rising generation of that 
city, Ave append below an extract from the regular Boston 
correspondent of the Sacramento Union, which will be found in 
the number of that paper bearing date August 21, 1865. 

The author of this letter can neither be charged with writing 
under the influence of sectional nor political prejudice, since 
he is himself a Boston man, and the regular correspondent of 
an influential paper devoted to the advancement of the same 
principles as characterized the dominant political party in the 
city of Boston. If it is true that " education forms the common 
mind," let the reader peruse the following, and tell us what he 
thinks of that education which formed the common mind of 
Boston city. 

The Boston correspondent of the Sacramento Union referred 
to says : 

"The terrible frequency of crimes among us — crimes, too, of 
the worst type — is the subject of general remark and of painful 
foreboding. I think I am safe in saying that no other three 
months in the history of this State have witnessed the perpe- 
tration of so many atrocious crimes as have the last three. Al- 
most every issue of the daily papers announce either a murder 
or a rape; and during the last week there were no less than four 
felonious assaults on females within ten miles of Boston. In 
two cases the persons assaulted were children under ten years 
— both waylaid in the public streets. In the third case, four 
North 'roughs,' who were attending a picnic in the town of 
Weston, foully outraged a girl of sixteen. In the fourth case, 
two young men assaulted a girl eighteen years of age, at Milton 
Hill. All the villains except one of the four concerned in the 
third case have been arrested. But what will be done with 
them ? What punishment is adequate to their crime ? Death 
would be a mistaken clemency; and if that could be their sen- 
tence, we have no Governor to carry it into effect. What causes 
this strange frequency of heinous crime it is hard to determine. 
Copperheads will tell you that such things are to be expected 
after the return of our great ari:pies; but I am happy to be able 
to state that in only one of the cases referred to was a soldier 



Boston and San Francisco. 115 

the criminal. But a uioro serious question tliau as to the occa- 
sion of these crimes is that which coiicerus their prosecution. 
No doubt the hanging of two or three men found guilty of such 
offenses as those above mentioned would have a wholesome 
effect upon the external morality of the community; but the 
cure must go deeper — it n^trst remove evils from wdiich crimes 
spring as naturally as.jjf«€cls from the ground. Three Avards, at 
least, of our cj^fTire simply nurseries of vice, and children 
growing u[y»mhin these precincts are destined almost as cer- 
tainly to cmme as if they Avere solemnly set apart to it by their 
parents. Statistics gathered from the criminal records of our 
courts show t^iat not less than eighteen hundred children come 
before the courts annually as criminals. These are the boys 
who, born into an atmosphere of wickedness, grow up unin- 
structed exce]it in vice, haunt the streets through childhood, 
and learn theft as tiieir first lesson, and intoxication as their 
second; these are the girls who, surrounded from the hour of 
their birth Avith vice of every name, insensibly and naturally 
become as bad as the worst of them in the House of Correction 
before they reach the legal age of woman. 

This is an evil Avhich grows Avith terrible rapidity, and there 
are no means to check it. Benevolent societies may do some- 
thing, but hoAV little in proportion to the work. It is not an 
agreeable task to contemplate; it is a delicate subject to be 
handled, and people do not like to meddle Avitli it unless forced 
to do so. But it is gradually assuming a magnitude that can- 
not be Avinked out of sight. It strikes me that our radical 
philanthropists, Wendell Phillips, Garrison, and men of their 
stamp, now that slavery is annihilated, could do no better ser- 
vice to God and their fellow-men, than by speaking and Avork- 
ing for the thousands of youth of both sexes that each year are 
entered upon a' life of crime and misery in the moral city of 
Boston. Trust the President to manage the South, Avhich he 
knoAA's so Avell, and turn your thoughts, oh! ye philanthropists, 
upon the Avilderness of weeds Avhich, if not uprooted, will choke 
the fair plants of virtue and morality in a city that has hitherto 
boasted of its purity. This carnival of crime, Avhich we seem 
to be noAv passing through, is participated in by both sexes. 
Prostitution flaunts itself openly on our streets. No public 
place is secure from the intrusion of shameless Avomen. On 
pleasant afternoons, Washington street is alive Avith gaudily- 
dressed Avomen, Avho, Avith unblushing foreheads, elbow and 
crowd decent Avomen, and solicit Avith every means but Avords 
the glances of the other sex. In the evening, a less aristocratic 
class begin their reign, and a man is fortunate if he Avalks 
through the street unsolicited or uninsulted by those female 
land-pirates. The proportion of very young girls engaged in 
this fearful trade is astonishing. Hundreds of girls not over 
fifteen years of age nightly walk the streets in search of a vie- 



116 Boston and San Feancisco. 

tim; and when the police, seized with a spasm of morality, 
make arrests of these characters, the dock of the Police Court 
next morning contains many faces from which the bloom of 
childhood has hardly been worn. 

"Not to the lower classes, either, is the growth of vice con- 
fined ; married women of respectable connection resort to assig- 
uation-honses, our hotels become brothels, and ice-cream sa- 
loons are thronged with frail women rendezvousing with a lover; 
houses of ill-fame contaminate almost every street. In one 
block, owned by a lady, there are five brothels, as many bar- 
rooms, and a large dance-hall; yet that lady belongs to one of 
the best families, and no doubt plumes herself upon her respect- 
able morality. It is said that our new constabulary police is 
intended to wage especial war against dram-shops and bawdy- 
houses, but they will find harder work before them than they 
ever saw in the army; they are all ex-soldiers, and what is Avorse, 
will lack that hearty sympathy of the public which attended 
their efforts during the war; for it is a fact unpalatable, but 
none the less a fact, that a painful moral laxity prevails in the 
community, whether the result of a state of war or not, and to 
this in a great degree must be attributed the frightful increase 
of crime among us." 

Here we have the resul" of an educational system which it 
costs the city of Boston $6-13,700 per annum to support, and 
which, ignoring parental authority, turns over the child into the 
hands of the State. How ought the heart of the San Fran- 
cisco parent to bound with joyous pride and exultation at being 
told that we actually have right here in our midst not only 
"Boston school-houses, but Boston children, with Boston 
ideas, Boston hopes, and Boston patriotism gleaming in their 
eyes and faces." 

What we have here said has been dictated by no sectional 
feeling, but by a simple desire on our part to exhibit in their 
true light, to our San Francisco readers, the poisonous and 
deadly fruits of an educational system which they have been 
taught to regard as the great source of wisdom, sanctity and 
godliness; and to place before their eyes a picture of the dark 
and damning abyss of depravity to which they will doom their 
own children, if they continue in the future, as they have done 
in the past, to walk blindly in the footprints of Boston.* 

*Occidental, November 19. 186G. 



Both Sides Faikly Eepeesented. 117 



CHAPTEE XXVI. 

DISCUSSION OF THE SCHOOL QUESTION — BOTH SIDES FAIRLY REPRE- 

SEISTED. 

In Februiuy, 1867, while editing the Occidental and Vanguard, 
the Avriter received the followiug communication touching the 
school question from a well known and eminent lawyer, formerly 
of Northern California, then residing temporarily at San Luis 
Obispo. This communication was over the assumed name of 
" Moro," and was as follows: 

"San Luis Obispo, February — , 1867. 

"Mr. Editor: With an editor who conducts his paper with 
honesty of purpose, purity of motive, and comprehensive ca- 
pacity, there is no difficulty in discussing questions in his own 
journal. From my knowledge of your head and heart, I ven- 
ture — no, not venture — but confidently make througli the col- 
umns of your paper, and as a differing friend, some suggestions 
upon your specialty — the school question. 

"Each man has his standpoint. Through it he sees the world 
— thinks and feels for the world. With it he compares and 
weighs all human actions and judges mankind. From it he 
writes and speaks his opinions, and supports them to whatever 
extent his capacity may reach. 

"Now, in my judgment, and I know you well, your misfor- 
tune, or your error, or your prematurity of action (I don't know 
what to call it) on this question arises from the fact that your 
standpoint is too elevated for society in general — for the com- 
monality of parents. You are a father, not merely a physical 
father, not merely a provisional father, supplying food and rai- 
ment, but you are a moral. Christian, intelligent father, duly 
imbued with a full sense of responsibility to God and j'our off- 
spring. What a responsibility ! Brought into the world with- 
out their own agency; growing to manhood without capacity to 
mould as they grow their mental and moral nature, all children 
have the right to hold parents strictly accountable before God 
and man for neglect of this, their first duty. How few feel the 
responsibility! How less act it! This is not merelj^ a dry, 
cold, moral duty with you. This is a fountain of paternal love, 
overflowing, which moistens, warms and stimulates all thoughts 
and feelings, and sends its streamlets into the young souls. 



118 Both Sides Faiely Kepiiesented. 

You, sir, live iu the hearts of your children; your domestic 
heart glows with affection. Your little ones bask in the sun- 
shine of a father's love — a father's devotion. Indeed, the ten- 
der care over the motherless first-born reached sublimity. 

"All these conditions in high degree combine to form your 
standpoint. From this you write and speak to society — to ten 
of your class — to a thousand provisional fathers. It is well, so 
far as it tends to elevate the standard of parental responsibility. 
It is well, so far as it tends to reform gross evils and abuses. 
It is well, so far as it tends to drive radical politics and radical 
religion from the public schools. It is well to take the pigmies, 
if any there are, from high places over the young character of 
the State, and replace them with larger and nobler intellects. 
But it is not well to destroy the only system which will educate, 
in part at least, the sons and daughters of simply provisional 
and non-provisional fathers. What proportion, think you, of 
the children of the State, or of San Francisco, would receive a 
common education if the matter were left exclusively with their 
parents ? 

' ' If all were like you, we would neither need nor have public 
schools. But the State must see to it that the children of the 
poor, also of the cold and neglectful parents, are educated. 

"This necessitates a public system. It appears to me, that 
your plan proposes a system of disintegration — engrafts upon 
our present system the power of dissolution by degrees. Com- 
ponent parts of the whole, may unite in small parties and draw 
out and take their proportions of the common funds. If this 
process of organization and subtraction should be carried on 
brisk enough, Mr. Pelton would wake up some morning and find 
that he had neither schools nor treasury under his direction. 
The change and the uncertainty, arising from the withdrawal of 
these voluntary organizations, from time to time, and their dis- 
continuance at other times, would be enough in themselves to 
destroy the efficacy of the general law. 

"It is undoubtedly true, as you contend, that the nearer the 
teacher is brought to the heart of the child and the head of the 
parent (provided the parent has a head), the better it is for the 
child. But where the parent has no intelligence to direct, no 
just conceptions of duty, and but a chilling love to impel, and a 
frown for all things, then leave the child in the hands of the 
te/achers of the public schools — Avith teachers indirectly elected 



Both Sides Fairly Represented. 119 

by society. I would rather trust the head and heart of society 
than the heads and hearts of such j)areuts. I would not as- 
sume, however, that there are parents who are not more or less 
imbued with parental love and desire for the advancement and 
improvement of their children; but, then, they have such an un- 
intelligent, irregular, discordant, indifferent and neglectful way 
of showing it in the matter of education (when left to them 
alone), that one might think, were it not for the law of nature, 
that society has more kind regard for the child than has the par- 
ent. Theorize as you choose on this question, still the fact 
exists, that in this country, parents, however much they love 
their children, will allow all the cares, labors and pleasures of 
life to trample upon, cast off, and ignore their great first duty — 
personal attention to the mode and manner of education. Ed- 
ucation begins, or should begin at home, and to a great extent 
should be conducted at home. It is not so. We must legislate 
for society as it is. It is not practical to make and execute laws 
for theoretical or hypothetical conditions. A few would follow 
your plan; the remainder would be indifferent to all plans. 
The smaller schools in the country would "break into flinders." 
We had better c«re the disease, rather than to kill the body. 

MORO." 

To the above, the writer through the columns of his paper re- 
plied as follows: 

The foregoing communication is from the pen of a well known 
lawyer of no mean ability, and probably presents in their very 
strongest light, the chief objections hitherto urged by the"'advo- 
cates of the New England common school system against the 
reform contended for by the Occidental. 

Passing by the high encomiums which the partiality natural to 
an old friend has induced our correspondent to lavish upon so 
unworthy a recipient as the humble editor of this paper, we 
shall proceed at once to the question under discussion — pi*emis- 
ing, however, that Moro is quite right in supposing that he will 
at no time find any difficulty in discussing questions in our own 
journal. There is no better way to elicit truth, and arrive at 
correct conclusions on any question, than to have both sides 
fairly represented; hence we shall never hesitate, when space al- 
lows, to give place to communications from our "differing 
friends," provided always that such communications, like the one 
in question, conform to the legitimate rules of discussion. 



120 Both Sides Faiely Eepeesented. 

Judging from certain passages in his communication, one 
might incline to the conclusion that Moro had fallen into the 
very common mistake of supposing that we were aiming at the 
total destruction of the common school system, and not at its 
radical reformation — an error which has misled thousands be- 
fore him. For example, he says: "But it is not well to destroy 
the only system which will educate, in part at least, the sons 
and daughters of simply provisional and non-provisional fath- 
ers." 

In order to show that the carrying out of the plan which we 
propose would eventuate in the destruction of the public school 
system, our correspondent says: "It appears to me that your 
plan proposes a system of disintegration, engrafts upon our 
present system the power of dissolution by degrees," etc. 

Now, we must here be permitted to reiterate what we have so 
often said, that we are not aiming, either by direct or indirect 
means, at the destruction of the public schools, but only at 
their radical and entire reformation. What we are contending 
for is the vindication of Nature's irrepealable laws. If these 
laws can be vindicated and the common schools so shaped as to 
conform thereto — and we think they can — then let them stand. 
But if either Nature's laws must be trampled under foot in the 
education of our country's youth or else the common schools 
go down, then we say let them go. 

In our opinion, this school system has some good and some 
bad features. For example, we hold that the placing of the 
means of education within the reach of every child in the com- 
munity is a laudable feature in that system, while the robbing 
of the parent of the natural and God-given right to direct 
and control that education is monstrous. As Moro most elo- 
quently and ably says, "Brought into the world without their 
own agency, growing to manhood without capacity to mould as 
they grow their mental and moral nature, all children have a 
right to hold parents strictly amenable before God and man for 
the neglect of this their first duty." But how, we ask, can the 
parent be held strictly accountable before man for the neglect 
of a duty which man will not allow him to perform, to wit: the 
duty of moulding the mental and moral natures of his children 
by such an education as his own judgment and conscience ap- 
prove? That he is accountable to God is most true; but it is 
only for the reason that the school laws enacted by God Ai- 



Both Sides Fairly Kepresented. 121 

miglity are paramount to, and consequently nullify, those 
enacted by man. 

It is conceded on the other hand that the private school sys- 
tem has both its good and its bad features. Of course, we here 
use the word bad only in a pecuniary, and not in a moral sense, 
as we did when applying it to the common school sj'stem. Its 
chief good feature consists in holding the teacher amenable to 
the parent for his dealings with the child, and its principal bad 
feature is found in the frequent inability of the parent to pay 
for the child's education. Now, why not lop off from each of 
these systems its bad feature, and blending into one the remain- 
ing good features of each, thus remove from the path of our 
youthful poor the stumbling block which now bars the way to 
knowledge, without robbing them of the guardianship of their 
fathers and mothers ? In other words, why not allow parents 
to select their public schools pretty much as they now select 
their private schools; and at the same time let the teacher be 
paid out of the public fund, not according to the number of 
pupils living in his district, as is now the case, but according 
to the number actually attending his school ? 

As regards the question of political and sectarian teachings 
in the public schools, we Avould protect the right of every par- 
ent, whatever his political or religious belief, against the prose- 
lytizing of his child to a system of politics or religion against 
which his judgment and his conscience revolt. In order the 
better to protect the inalienable right of the parent to the 
guardianship and educational superintendence over his own off- 
spring, we Avould at all times recognize his right to take his 
child from one teacher and send it to another — thus diminish- 
ing the pay of the former and increasing that of the latter, so 
that the teacher might never forget that in his dealings with 
each individual pupil he was simply acting the part of agent for 
the parent. Moro objects to the system of school reform which 
we propose, on the ground of its supposed tendency to disin- 
tegrate and ultimately break up and destroy all free schools. 

It is more than probable that this idea of our friend is based 
upon the groundless charge which has so often been preferred 
against us, of seeking to procure a division of the school fund 
amongst the different religious denominations, according to 
their numbers, or at least the setting apart of a portion of that 
fund for the exclusive benefit of Roman Catholics. If we are 



122 Both Sides Faiely Eepeesented. 

correct in this surmise, we must beg leave to again repeat what 
we have said a thousand times, in public lectures, in private 
conversations, and through the columns of our paper, namely: 
We ask for no division of the school fund amongst the different 
religious denominations, nor would we have any part of that 
fund set apart for the exclusive benefit of Catholics, or any other 
class of religionists, as such. 

The war which we are w^aging upon certain features of our 
present educational system, we repeat, rests not upon sectarian 
but upon parental grounds; andif every tnan, ivoman and child 
in the ivorld belonged to the same religiooi as ourselves, our objections 
to selectivg teachers and directing the child's education by the public 
instead of the parental voice tvould still remain. 

It is quite true that the plan which we propose would tend to 
prevent the unjust appropriation of vast sums of the school 
moneys in certain favored localities, to the entire exclusion and 
great injury of other localities equally entitled to the use of such 
moneys. For example, instead of investing $100,000 in a Lin- 
coln palace for the accommodation of pupils in one quarter of 
the city, while only a few blocks away hundreds of other pupils, 
equally entitled to comfortable quarters, are being stowed away in 
miserable corner-groceries, and low, dark, dank and unhealthy 
cellars, the reformation which we propose would apply this same 
$100,000 toward the liberal support of at least a dozen, perhaps 
less ornamental, but far more useful schools, in different parts 
of the city. Each of such schools would receive a compensa- 
tion commensurate with the number of its pupils, thus enabling 
its proprietors to accommodate their buildings, both in size and 
form of construction, to the necessities of those intrusted to 
their care. A greater mistake could not be committed than to 
suppose that this sort of disintegration of the school moneys 
could work to the educational detriment of any child in the 
land, whatever might be the political or religious opinions of 
its parents. 

On the contrary, were we in search of some plan whereby to 
create discord and division among the public schools, and to 
destroy their efficiency by driving off the pupils, we know of 
no better system for such a purpose than the one now in vogue. 
Let figures decide the question. According to a statement 
which we find in the December number of the California 
Teacher, there were in this State, during the past year, between 



Both Sides Fairly Eepeesented. 123 

the ages of five and fifteen, some 84.052 children, all of whom 
were entitled to attend the public schools, but out of this num- 
ber the entire average attendance was 33,980. In the county of 
Los Angeles, there were 2504 entitled to attend, and but 376 
who did attend. In Monterey, 1443 Avere- entitled to attend, and 
but 337 did attend. In Sutter, 1005 were entitled to attend, 
and 282 did attend. And even here, in San Francisco, where 
nearly a half a million of dollars per annum are lavished on the 
public schools, and where 17,388 children were entitled to at- 
tend, only 7949 did attend. Nor is this state of things confined 
to California. We have before us a book entitled "The Daily 
Public School," which was recently published in Philadelphia, 
in the interest of the common school system, wherein it is 
claimed that, throughout the United States, not more than three 
children out of seven attend the public schools. Does it not, 
then, sound strangely enough to hear the advocates of a law 
which drives four children away from school for every three 
that it lets in, urging objections to amending the law in the 
manner we propose, for fear of engrafting upon it a system of 
disintegration and destroying its efficiency ? 

The chief causes of non-attendance upon the public schools 
seem to our mind jierfectly obvious. In some instances, chil- 
dren are kept from the schools in consequence of their real or 
supposed sectarian tendencies; in others, because of their 
political bias; in others again, because of their bad morals or 
unhealthy condition. 

While recently on a visit to a thriving village in Santa Clara 
county, where the political parties were nearly equally divided, 
we found a public school where not a single Democratic child 
was attending. Of course, the fear of having the children 
taught radicalism was the cause. On the other hand, in the 
counties of Sutter and Tuolumne, there are, as we learn, certain 
localities where the Kepublicans refuse to send to the schools, 
for fear of contaminating their children with Democratic ideas. 

There are just two ways of checking this process of disintegra- 
tion now going on in our schools. The one is that advocated 
by Thaddeus Stevens, whereby it is proposed to force all chil- 
dren, good, bad and indifierent, white, black and yellow, into 
the same schools, whether the parents are willing or not; and the 
other is that advocated by the Occidental, which aims at a re- 
moval of the causes Avhich render parents unwilling to send 



124 Both Sides Fairly Eepresented. 

their children to school, whether such causes come in the 
shape of foul air, or whether they take the form of political, 
sectarian, or atheistical teachings. 

Let the teacher once understand, for example, he who now has 
charge of one of the model primary schools of this city, where 
the children are piled one on the other, inhaling the foul death- 
breeding air of a dark cellar, studying Lossing's lies for history, 
and singing "hozannas" to an executed thief and murderer, as 
a religious exercise, we say, let that teacher once feel that he 
stands individually responsible to the parents of each and every 
one of his pupils for the health, as well as the mental and moral 
training of such pupil ; that the amount of his pay depends upon 
the number of children taught in his school; and that the com- 
petition of a better school would rob him of his employment, 
and our word for it, his miserable cellar would be speedily ex- 
changed for more comfortable quarters; "Hail Columbia" 
would take the place of old "John Brown," and the truth of his- 
tory would be vindicated by converting Lossing's "Primary 
United States " into kindling fuel, instead of employing it, as 
now, to light the infernal fires of sectional hatred, discord, and 
wars interminable. Under the workings of such a system as 
we propose, no difference what might be the politics or religion 
of the teacher, nor how diverse and conflicting the political and 
religious opinions of his patrons, knowing that the amount of 
his pay must depend upon the number of his pupils, and that 
the number of his pupils must depend upon the will of their 
parents, he would find it his interest, no less than his duty, to 
carefully exclude from his pupils all teachings, whether of a 
sectarian, a political or an infidel character, calculated to offend 
any class of his patrons. 

For the life of us, we cannot understand by what process of 
reasoning the conclusion can be reached that a parent who is 
now sending his child to a teacher that is not of his choice, 
would refuse to send him to one of his own selection. 

To suppose that the schools would all be broken up, and the 
children left to grow up in ignorance, because of each parent's 
being allowed to select his own school, while the State stands 
ready to pay for the tuition, seems to us about as reasonable as 
that the hotels and<eating-houses would all be broken up, and 
the people left to starve, if each individual were allowed to take 
his meals where he pleased, the government being both able 
and willing to foot the bills. 



Both Sides Faiely Eepeesented. 125 

He must be a brainless fool, indeed, who would allow liim- 
self to starve in the midst of free lunches, or who would permit 
his children to grow up in ignorance, surrounded by free 
schools, simplj because of being allowed to choose for himself, 
in the one case, where and what he would eat, and in the other 
case, where, by whom, and how his children should be educated. 

We can easily understand how the hotel-keeper, who is to 
get his pa3^from the government, whether his victuals are eaten 
or not, might naturally enough so disgust his guests with tainted 
meats, strong butter and swill-milk, as to empty his hotel, and 
leave his waiters idle; and it is precisely upon the same prin- 
ciple that the school oflScials and school-teachers, who cfeaw 
their pay whether the children come to school or not, do not 
hesitate to regale their pupils on fetid air, false history, and 
blasphemous songs. Under these circumstances, it is no wonder 
that only three children out of seven attend the free schools. 

But our correspondent argues that there is apparently a Avant 
of suflficient intelligence on the part of parents to enable them 
to properly discharge the parental duty of directing and con- 
trolling in the matter of the child's education, and that there- 
fore it is necessary to devolve this duty on society at large. 
He says: "It is undoubtedly true, as you contend, that the 
nearer the teacher is brought to the heart of the child, and to 
the head of the parent (provided the parent has a head), the 
better it is for the child. But when the parent has no intelli- 
gence to direct, and no just conceptions of duty, and but a 
chilling love," etc., "leave the child in the hands of the public 
schools, wi^h teachers indirectly elected by society." 

Now we ai'e at a loss to know whether our correspondent in- 
tends to assume that these parents Avhom he designates as with- 
out heads, destitute of intelligence, and impelled by a chilling 
love, constitute only exceptional cases, or whether he would 
claim that they form the majority of society. If they are only 
the exceptions, and form no fair standard by which to judge the 
great mass of mankind, then we ask, in all candor, is it not ex- 
ceedingly bad legislation to force upon millions of intelligent, 
virtuous and affectionate parents, a system of school laws 
which are only fitted for cold-hearted and brainless dolts ? On 
the other hand, if our friend Moro adheres to the theory of 
general depravity, cold-heartedness and stupidity, then we are 
curious to know whence a society, made up of such brainless 



12() Both Sides Fairly Eepeesented. 

elements, is supposed to derive its superior wisdom ? If jon 
cannot trust a child in the custody of its mother, idiot though 
she be, surely you will not dare consign it to the raving mer- 
cies of a mad-house ? And is it not a horrible thought to the 
reflecting father, that these ignorant, heartless and headless 
parents, whom he is not willing to trust with the custody of 
their own children, must be made the guardians of his ? Jj'or be 
it remembered, that they each have a voice, and just as many 
voices, too, as the most intelligent father, in shaping the edu- 
cational institutions of the country, and determining who shall 
be our teachers. It will not do to say that these ignorant par- 
ents have no direct voice in choosing the teachers; for, 
although they do not vote directly for the teachers, they do vote 
directly for the men who make and unmake the teachers — in 
other words, they vote for the teachers' masters, and the most 
intelligent and virtuous parent in the land can do no more. 
We cannot understand how it is that a parent who is unfit to 
have charge of his own is any better fitted to take charge of 
his neighbor's children. 

Our correspondent seems to have fallen into the error of sup- 
posing that multitudes are more humane, more just and more 
benevolent than are the individuals composing such multitudes; 
whereas all history and experience show that just exactly the 
reverse of this proposition is true. Hence, it so often happens 
that a mob perpetrates outrages against all law and justice, from 
the bare mention of which any single individual composing such 
mob would shrink with horror, if left to act upon his individual 
responsibility. Nor is this principle limited in its operation to 
mere mobs. 

In the month of May last, as we told our readers at the time, 
a committee of San Francisco grand jurymen, in reporting upon 
the condition of the common schools of this city, among other 
things said: "At the corner of Broadway and Montgomery 
streets, we found 450 children, absolutely stowed one upon the 
other, in a building into which not sufficient ventilation and 
light are admitted to sustain even life : and this is but a fair 
sample of what we witnessed on Tehama, Third, Silverj Stock- 
ton, Post and Eighth streets." 

Now, is it fair to suppose that there is in this city a single 
parent so base or so stupid — unless indeed it results from a 
common school education — that if left to choose his own school, 



Both Sides Faiely Kepresented. 127 

would have thrust his children into such a miserable den as one 
of those here described? No, sir, unless for the reason just 
suggested, no one man, Avhether parent or not, could have been 
equal to such a barbarous work. It required the combined 
wickedness, ignorance and venality of an entire city, concen- 
trated in and operating through that soulless corporation known 
as the board of education of San Francisco, to perpetrate so 
fiendish an outrage upou a parcel of young and defenseless 
children. 

We confess, nevertheless, that there is a volume of fearful 
truth embodied in that sentence of our correspondent, where 
he says: "In this country, parents will allow all the cares, 
labors and pleasures of life, to trample upon, cast off and ig- 
nore their great first duty — personal attention to the manner 
and mode of education. 

We now propose to show that it is precisely to our present 
educational system- -that system which Moro seeks to defend — 
that we must look for the source of this very parental neglect of 
which he complains. We hold that every faculty with which 
the Almighty has endowed man or beast, is strengthened by 
exercise and enfeebled by disuse. Hence the difference in size 
and strength between the limbs and muscles of the robust 
blacksmith, and of the puny dry goods clerk, both of whom 
may have started life equal in strength and with similar pros- 
pects of reaching a giant's power. But, exercise has made the 
one a giant, and the want of it has left the other a pigmy. Lip- 
pincott, in his Gazetteer of the world, speaks of a custom which 
has long prevailed in Egypt, of hatching chickens by artificial 
heat and raising them by hand; and the author adds that "the 
poultry reared in this way are wholly without the instincts which 
relate to the care of offspring; the artificial method of hatching, 
therefore, when once resorted to, soon becomes necessary, and 
the natural system of incubation is totally superseded." 

It was upon this same principle that the fathers and mothers 
of ancient Sparta, having been reared and educated by the 
State, according to the plans and purposes of the State, with- 
out regard to the wishes of parents, hesitated not, in obedience 
to the State's behests, to murder their own children whenever 
feebleness or deformity threatened to render them a charge 
upon the public. When Spartan mothers rejoiced to learn that 
their sons had fallen in battle, it was not because they loved 



128 Both Sides Fairly Represented. 

tlieir country more than other mothers, but because they loved 
their children less. We need not, however, go either to ancient 
Sparta, or to an Egyptian poultry-yard, to learn the fruits of an 
unnatural, anti-parental system of education. The Egyptian 
fowls simply neglected their chickens, but they neither destroy- 
ed their eggs nor took the lives of their young. The Spartan 
mother only visited with death the feeble and the deformed; 
but it remained for the mothers of our own day and country; 
for the intelligent, the refined, the highly educated and Christian 
mothers of America to murder indiscriminately the feeble and 
the strong, the ill-shaped and the well-formed. The Lawrence 
(Mass.) American, of July 11, 1866, publishes an account of 
the wholesale murder by starvation of helpless infants by a 
fiendish old hag (a Mrs. Rogers) who had been specially em- 
ployed by their unnatural and monster-hearted mothers for the 
diabolical work. It was therein related that some of these 
mothers, while their little innocents lay writhing in the last 
agonies of starvation, were heard to express the pious hope 
'^that their infants tvould die, and they luould then he relieved of 
the hurden of 'paying a dollar a week to the woman for their sup- 
port. 

It is true that the murder of these children of itself, horrible 
as it was, amounts to but little in the great aggregate of human 
crime; but when we come to reflect that these child murders 
are but the outcroppings of a deep seated and far reaching 
moral malady, which underlies the whole social fabric, striking 
its poisonous roots into millions upon millions of young and 
tender minds, threatening not merely the downfall of social 
order, but the annihilation of society itself, then indeed are 
they sufficient to fill with alarm every reflecting mind. 

Not even content to wait for their victims to see the blessed 
light of day, many of these moral monsters, wage a murderous 
war by anticipation against their unborn and unbegotten babes. 
As a gentleman of intelligence truthfully ren>arked to us a few 
days ago: "It is beginning to be looked upon by many as the 
very acme of an accomplished female education to learn how to 
play the part of a wife without incurring the dangers of becom- 
ing a mother." 

Since we began to pen this article, we have received the Jan- 
uary number of the Land We Love, in which we find some 
extracts published by a Boston paper, from a lecture recently 



Both Sides Fairly Bepresented. 129 

delivered by a Dr. Nathan Allen, of Lowell, Mass., which 
throws sufficient light on this gloomy subject to startle the most 
indifferent well-wisher of the human race. Let those who 
doubt that the raising of chickens and of children without 
parental care is attended with similar results, read the following: 

"The district to which Dr. Allen's inquiries apply has been 
settled about two hundred years, and its history will include 
some six generations. From actual examination, it is found 
that the families composiug the first generation averaged eight 
children each; the next three generations averaged about seven 
to each family; the fifth generation about four and a half, and 
the sixth less than three for each family; while the generation 
now coming upon the stage is not doing so well as that. 'What 
a change,' moralizes the doctor, 'as to the size of the family 
now and in former times ? Then large families were common — 
now it is the exception ; then it was rare to find married persons 
having only one, two and three children — now it is very com- 
mon? Then it was regarded as a calamity for a married couple 
to have no children; but now we find such calamities on every 
side of us — in fact, they are fashionable!' Dr. Allen finds, 
from a census of the State in 1765 — just one hundred years ago 
— that almost one-half the population in the towns he has al- 
ready alluded to, was under fifteen years of age, but noAv there 
is not one-fifth of the American population made up from this 
class. ' If there shall continue to be every year,' concludes the 
doctor, more deaths than births — if the families now upon the 
stage average less than three children each, and these in each 
successive generation, have on a average, a less and less num- 
ber — if only about three-fifths of those born even live to an 
adult age, to say nothing about the decrease in marriages, it is 
pretty evident that the Yankee race is destined to run out."* 

In further proof of the alarming facts revealed by Dr. Allen, 
Ave may here refer to the United States Census Reports for 
1860, p. 276, from which it appears that in the State of Massa- 
chusetts the number of births per annum, among the foreign 
born population, averaged one to every fourteen inhabitants, 

*Since the first publication of our discussion with "More," we have seen go- 
ing the rounds of the papers a report prepared by this same Dr. Allen, wherein 
the author, in referring to the procurement of abortions, declares that this most 
dreadful practice is " on the increase in all classes of societi/, 7-ich as tcell as poor." 
^'Nowhere, and at no time in the history of the loorld (says this gentleman) was the 
practice so common as it is in this country. — [See Sacramento Union, October 31, 
18G7. 

9 



130 Both Sides Faiely Eepresented. 

while among the natives, the average was but one to fifty-seven 
inhabitants. 

In commenting on the above lecture General Hill adds: 

"The lecture will serve to explain a remarkable fact noticed 
all over the South, vis;. : that since emancipation, not one-fifth 
as many negro children have been born as in the same period 
in former years. Oh, ye school-marms of Massachusetts, when 
will the full result of your teachings be known ?" 

To us it is no matter of surprise that the victim of a common 
school education under the present system, naturally shrinks 
from the idea of becoming a parent. No sooner is the little 
Miss out of her mother's arms, than the State takes charge of 
her education. The State designates for her the school-house, 
selects her books, appoints her teachers, chooses her compan- 
ions, and in fact does everything that the parent ought to do, 
and all upon the ground that the parent is not fit to be entrusted 
with this high duty. The mere fact of sending the child to 
such a school — whatever its character — gives a sort of parental 
sanction to this monstrous usurpation; and the result is that 
the child soon learns to believe in the terrible fallacy upon 
which the whole system rests, namely, that it is safer, as Moro 
expresses it, ' ' to trust the head and heart of society than the heads 
and hearts of such parents.^' 

True, when she looks upon society and scrutinizes its com- 
ponent parts; when she studies its history and fathoms its mo- 
tives of action, she will probably form no very exalted opinion 
either of its wisdom or its morality. She finds it a body with- 
out a soul; its garments are stained with the blood, and its 
countenance blackened with the crimes of ages; it counts 
among its members and claims as its counsellors, every drunk- 
ard and loafer, every hypocrite, perjurer, thief, pick-pocket and 
robber; every rake, fornicator and adulterer in the land. By 
the dim light of history, she sees it at one time driving into 
banishment and to death the illustrious Hannibal; at another, 
expatriating the noble Marcellus; now murdering a Socrates, 
and now crucifying the Eternal Son of the living God. From 
Sinai's hights she hears the voice of this same God command- 
ing in thunder tones: " Honor thy father and thy mother,'" and 
then she hears this red-handed deicide — society — exclaiming : "J 
forbid it, honor not thy father and thy mother, hut honor me tohose 



Both Sides I'aiiily Represented. 131 

head and heart it is safer to trust than the heads and hearts of such 
fathers and mothers." 

The choice having been once settled against the parent and 
against the positive command of God himself, who can wonder 
at what follows. 

If society teaches through its schools a code of politics, of 
morals or religion which conflicts with that taught by the 
parents, it having been already determined that it is safer to 
"trust the head and heart of society than the heads and hearts 
of such parents," as a matter of course, the child sides with so- 
ciety and against the parents. If the parents teach ihe little 
girl that old John Brown was a great sinner, and societ}' teaches 
that he was a great saint, she will adopt the opinion of society; 
and just in proportion as the illustrious Kansas criminal rises 
,in the scale of her estimation, in the same proportion will her 
own father and mother ba lowered. 

The result of such a conflict between the teachings at home 
and the teachings at school is not problematical. The little 
girl will grow to womanhood a proud, disobedient, ungrateful 
child, despising the very name of mother. For her home would 
have no attractions. Theatres, and balls, and parties, and 
buggy-rides, and street displays would take the place of home 
enjoyments. In choosing between honorable marriage with its 
pains and its cares, its toils and its tears, on the one hand, and 
on the other, the gay and guilty life of the courtesan, with its 
false hopes and delusive pleasures, Avho can wonder if such a 
young lady with such an education prefers the latter. 

But suppose she chooses the part of marriage. Despising as 
she does her own mother, is it likely that she Avill desire to take 
a mother's place, and become the very thing which she thus 
despises ? When she reflects upon the prospect of giving up 
society — her dear old society, which she has been taught from 
infancy to revere more than the mother that bore her or the 
father that gave her bread — society with its balls and pic-nics, 
anol promenades, and pleasure rides; and when she thinks of 
confining herself a prisoner at home, doomed to the pains of 
bearing, and the cares, toils, and anxieties of rearing children 
only to hate her as she hates her own mother, who can wonder 
if this wretched, monsterized victim of a false education calls 
to her aid some one of the numerous diabolical modern appli- 
ances to prevent conception? (We make no apology to our 



152 Both Bides Fairly Eepresented. 

readers for using plain language, because the subject and the 
occasion imperatively demand it. We feel that the fate of 
unborn millions, if not the existence of society itself, is in- 
volved in the questions which we are discussing, and no mock 
modesty shall deter us from making ourselves understood. We 
know that our friends who understand our motives will not 
complain; while our opponents, who daily read in their own 
most respectable journals, advertisements offering for sale these 
self-same satauic and God-forbidden appliances, surely have no 
ground for complaint.) These instrumentalities failing, it too 
often happens that some deadly drug or a surgeon's steel is sent 
upon its infernal mission of death; or, perhaps, as a last resort, 
if the little stranger will persist in thrusting his unwelcome 
personage between the mother and her dear "society,'''' either 
some Mrs. Eogers' boarding house, or a San Francisco base- 
ment school, like that on the corner of Broadway and Mont- 
gomery, accomplishes that which milder means had failed to 
effect. 

Of course, we do not intend to intimate that a life of guilt 
always marks the career of him or her who has been doomed to 
this anti-parental system of education; but we do insist that its 
tendency is in the direction to which we have pointed. We 
most firmly believe that no nation, no people, no societj^ no 
religion that adopts it can long survive its demoralizing, poison- 
ous and death-engendering influence. 



A Blast from a Preacher. 133 

CHAPTER XXVII. 

A BLAST FROM A PREACHER. 

The California Christian Advocate, in its issue of the twelfth 
of July, 1866, had the following : 

"The Occidental and Vaugnord, Zach. Montgomery, editor, 
date July second, publishes a letter from J. F. Liuthicum, 
dated Tuquerres Cauca, U. S. of C, May 12, 1866. This let- 
ter and its author are commended by the editor of the Occi- 
dental and Vanguard. Especially is it approved as furnishing 
'another link to the chain of testimony against the monstrous 
crime of negro equality.' Mr. Liuthicum says of the people: 
They are iguorant, indolent, and exceedingly filthy in their 
habits; and much more to the same effect, which we do not 
choose to quote. Mr. L. might have lifted the veil from 
priest and devotee, and deepened the gloora of his picture 
of the ignorance and moral depravity of these people; he would 
not wound the sensibilities of his friend. We will make a 
few statements, the correctness of which Mr. Montgomery 
will not question. They have no free schools in Central 
America; there is no Protestant Christianity in effective 
organization and operation there. The dear 'Mother Church' 
has had the instruction and moulding of these people for gen- 
erations, undisturbed by free speech, free press, free thought, 
free men. Therefore, the beautiful and truthful picture of the 
social and civil condition of that people, drawn by Mr. Lintbi- 
cum." 

To the above we replied as follows: It is quite evident that 
the reverend gentleman who penned the above scurrilous attack 
upon a class of religionists to which he doubtless knew that 
the editor of the Occidental professed to belong, was actuated 
by the hopeful desire of provoking from us an assault upon 
Protestantism, by way of retaliation for the sneering reference 
which he makes to Avhat he calls "Mother Church." Unfor- 
tunately, however, we have never had the advantage of being 
educated in sncli "free scliooW'' as those to which his reverence 
alludes; and, consequently, have never learned to make war 
upon our neighbors on account of their religious opinions, or 
to doubt that they have an equal right with ourselves to worship 
God according to the dictates of their own consciences. If we 
were not born in New England, and, consequently have not 
had the advantages of her free schools, we beg his reverence to 
remember, that while it may be our misfortune, it is certaiuly 
not our fault. 



134 A Blast feom a Preacher. 

Our defense is this. As nearly as we can gather from the record 
of an old family Bible — yes sir, strange as it may sound in your 
ears, our benighted ancestors actually had a Bible — our fore- 
fathers migrated from the Old to the New World, now some- 
thing like two hundred years ago. At that time our paternal 
ancestors were members of what you call the "Mother Church," 
as were also a portion of our maternal ancestors, while another 
portion were statmch Protestants of the Established Church of 
England. The consequence was that neither branch of our 
family was permitted to set foot upon the sacred soil of New 
England, which at that time under the jurisdiction of the blue 
laws, was addicted to the Christian practice of drowning witches, 
burning, hanging or banishiug Quakers and other dissenters, for 
opinion's sake. They were therefore, deprived of the priceless 
privilege of educating their children in those model "free 
schools," where the importance of these pious practices were 
probably taught as a necessary part of a common school educa- 
tion. 

Unable to find a lodgment on New England soil, these ances- 
tors settled in old Maryland, where Catholics and Protestants 
of all denominations lived together in peace, harmony and 
brotherly love, each content to mind his own business and to 
worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, 
leaving his neighbor to exercise exactly the same privilege with- 
out the fear of fire, water, or the hangman's halter. 

They did not. believe that anger, hatred and ill will, consti- 
tuted any part of Christian charity, nor did they recognize 
either the gibbet or the stake — whether employed by Catholic 
or Protestant — as a legitimate argument in behalf of religious 
truth. 

During the primitive period of Maryland's history, the parents 
of that benighted colony were ignorantly supposed to be the 
most proper guardians of their own children, and exercised a 
paramount control over the subject of their eduation. As might 
have been expected, they caused their children to be imbued 
with'the same stupid ideas of reciprocal toleration which they 
themselves entertained. 

These are the ideas which our own immediate paternal and 
maternal ancestors; migrating, the former from Maryland, and 
the latter from Virginia, brought with them to Kentucky more 
than half a century ago; and these, reverend sir, are the ideas 



A Blast from a Preacher. 135 

which at a latter j^eriod they transmitted as an inheritance, 
good or bad, as the case may bo, to your humble contemporary. 
These ideas have ever constituted our rule of thought and of 
action, and form the standard whereby we shall endeavor in 
the future as in the past to regulate our intercourse with all 
our fellow-citizens, whether they be Jews, Catholics, Protest- 
ants or non-religionists. 

And now, reverend friend, we trust that you will find no diffi- 
culty in understanding why it is that we cannot be provoked 
into making an assault upon 3'ou, on account of your religious 
belief, even by way of retaliation. Indeed, without at all hypo- 
critically pretending to agree with you in religious opinion, we 
very much incline to the belief that a strict adherence on your 
part to the doctrines taught in that book, which you profess to 
make your rule of faith, even as interpreted by yourself, when 
prescribing maxims for the government of others would have 
saved us the disagreeable necessity of making the foregoing re- 
marks. And why should we attack any system of religion, 
whether we regard it as true or false, on account of practices, 
which, after all, are in violation of its teachings.^ To pursue 
such a course would be to imitate your example when you 
undertake to attribute the filth, ignorance and immorality of the 
degraded mongrels of South America to the teachings of a 
church whose colleges and seminaries of learning bespangle the 
world, and are of such a character and standing certainly as to 
need no commendation at our hands. 

Were we even otherwise disposed to make such an assault upon 
our Protestant friends and neighbors as you seem desirous of 
provoking, so ungrateful a task would be utterly out of the ques- 
tion, for the following reasons : We could not forget that the 
liberties which we inherited from our fathers were due, in great 
part, to the blood of our Protestant patriots, generously poured 
on a hundred battle-fields; that many of our old schoolmates 
and warmest friends, both in California and other lands, are 
professed Protestants; and finally, we could not lose sight of 
the fact that there are to-day about three Protestants to one 
Catholic amongst those who, in the very teeth of misrepresenta- 
tion, calumny and persecution, are standing up, not only like 
men, but like true, moral and mental heroes, which they are, 
and battling by our side against the obnoxious feature of this 
same boasted "free school" system, which is robbing the par- 



136 A Blast from a Peeacher. 

enfc of the care, custody aucl affection of his child; the child 
of the guardianship, counsel and protection of its parents; and 
the people at large of both their liberties and their virtue. 

Do not, however, imagine in reference to this school question, 
that Ave are waging a war against education itself, nor even 
against the more commendable features of the "free school'* 
system. What we desire to do is to cut out the putrid parts in 
order, if possible, to preserve the sound. Nor do wo wish our 
remarks to be construed into an indiscriminate assault upon 
either the New England States or New England people. Like 
every other part of the world, New England has had, and still 
has, its good and its bad institutions, as well as its good and 
its bad people. 

We maintain that the renowned Franklin is by no means to 
be held amenable for the sins of the infamous Cotton Mather; 
nor should the immortal Webster be made to answer;, for the 
moral obliquities which the newspapers attribute to the squint- 
ing Ben Butler.* 

^Occidental, July 23, 1866, 



The "Examiner" and the School Question. 137 

CHAPTER XXYIII. 

THE "examiner" AND THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 

In its issue of Saturday, Nov. 22, 1867, the Ejcaminev, having 
done us the kindness to copy into its columns oai- platform of 
principles on the School question, took occasion to submit some 
comments thereon, which wo reviewed as follows: 

In the article alluded to, the Examiner says: 

"We are rather inclined to think that tlie present system, in its 
main features, is not so objectionable in itself, but t'ue defect 
exists in the manner in which it has been perverted to base par- 
tisan ends." 

It is quite evident from the indefinite terms in which our es- 
teemed friend expresses his sentiments concerning our educa- 
tional system that he is not very decided in his endorsement of 
its merits. We now propose to address ourselves to the task of 
proving affirmatively the truth of the proposition which the Ex- 
aminer without denying, seems inclined to doubt, namely, that 
the present common school system, in at least one of its "main 
features" is "positively objectionable in itself." 

Now, if it can be shown, as claimed in one of our published 
resolutions, that the parent is the natural and God-appointed 
guardian of his own children; that he is endowed by his Creator 
with the inalienable right and charged with the inalienable duty 
of determining in what manner and by whom his own child shall 
be educated, and if it can be further shown that one of the main 
features of our present educational system stands in direct con- 
flict with this natural, inalienable parental right and parental 
duty, we presume that it can scarcely be denied that the system 
is "objectionable in itself." 

The law of Nature, as it stands written on the heart of every 
creature, from man down to the meanest insect that crawls, pro- 
claims in unmistakable language that "the parent is the natural 
guardian and God-appointed teacher of its offspring." Why, 
the very wolf that would willfully refuse to teach its young how 
to supply its wants, and to shun danger, all mankind would, with 
one accord, pronounce a monster; while the man who would im- 
itate that monster, would deserve to rank as far below the dig- 
nity of a wolf as does a wolf below the dignity of man. 

Bevelation too, but reitei-ates the natural law on this subject: 



138 The "ExamJ^er" and the School Question. 

"My sou, keep the instructions of tlij father, and forsake not 
the teachings of thy mother." — Proverbs i: 8, 9." 

"A wise son heareth his father's instructions." — Proverbs 
x: iii, 1." 

"Children obeyyour parents in all things." — Colossians in :25." 

Nowhere do we j&nd the child commanded to look either to a 
governor, a legislature, nor to a board of education, but always 
to his own parents for counsel and instruction. 

Wajdand, in his elements of moral science — a work once used 
as a class book in the public high schools of this citj^ — when 
speaking of the natural duties which the parent owes the child, 
says: 

"1. He is bound to inform himself of the peculiar habits, 
and reflect upon the probable future situation of his child, and 
deliberately to consider what sort of education will most con- 
duce to his future happiness and usefulness. " 

"2. He is bound to select such instructors as will best ac- 
complish the results which he believes will be most beneficial." 

"3. He is bound to devote such time and attention to the 
subject as will enable him to ascertain whether the instructor 
of his child discharges his duty with faithfulness." "^ ^ 

"He has no right to say that he has no time for these duties. 
If God has required them of him, as is the fact, he has exactly 
time for them," etc. 

In referring to the duties of the teacher, Wayland says: "If 
he and the parent cannot agree, the connection must be dis- 
solved." 

Again, under the head of the "rights of parents," the same 
author says: "The right of the paren"^^ over his child is of 
course commensurate with his duties. Ii he be under obliga- 
tion to educate his child in sucli manner as he supposes will 
most conduce to the child's happiness and the welfare of so- 
ciet}^ he has, from necessity, the right t*"' control the child 
in everything necessary to the fulfillment of his obligations." 

So inseparably connected with the parental office is this duty 
to control in the matter of the child's education, that we do not 
hesitate to assert that, if every man and woman in the world 
were a living model of perfection, without spot or blemish, re- 
ligiously, morally, mentally or physically, still would the duty 
of directing and controlling, iii the matter of each child's edu- 
cation, devolve, imperatively and inalienably, upon its own 



The "Examiner" and the School Question. 139 

father and mother; for the simple reason that, of all created be- 
ings, it is oiily the father and mother of each child Avho can love 
that child with a parent's love; it is only the father and mother 
that can know all the little peculiarities of the child's mental, 
moral and physical organism, a knowledge of which is indis- 
pensably necessary to the riyiit understanding of its educational 
wants; it is only the parent who has a parent's opportunity, by 
daily and nightly contact with the child, to learn whether or not 
the teacher performs his duty; and finally, it is only the parent 
wdio, like the child itself, has a world of happiness or a world 
of misery involved in its good or bad training. 

Now does our contemporary deny these propositions? Does 
he deny that, in the language of Wayhind: "The parent is 
bound to select such instructors as will best accomplish the re- 
sult which he believes Avill be most beneficial?" Does he deny 
that the parent is " bound to devote such time and attention to 
the subject as will best enable him to ascertain whether the in- 
structor of his child discharges his duty with faithfulness?" 
Does he deny that the " teacher is only the agent, and the parent 
the principal," and that " if the teacher and the parent cannot 
agree the co)i7ieciion. must be dissolved?" or does he deny, as Way- 
laud again asserts, that " the duties cf a parent are established 
by God, and that God requires xis not to violate them?" 

We certainly have too exalted an opinion of both the head 
and heart of our friend of the Exami)ier, to suppose for one 
moment that he can, on reflection, doubt any one of these propo- 
sitions. 

The truth of these propositions being admitted, it only re- 
mains to inquire whether the laws regulating the present com- 
mon school system stand in conflict therewith. If such is the 
case, then either has God Almighty made a mistake, or else 
those laws must be wrong. 

Mr. John Swett, our State Superintendent (that soon is to be, 
no more, thank ^heaven!) in his biennial report, published in 
1865, has compiled from the decisions of Eastern courts — made 
under statutes similar to ours — what is now claimed and acted 
upon as law, governing the school system in this State. On 
j)age 165, the startling doctrine is announced that " The vulgar 
impression that parents have a legal right to dictate to teachers is er- 
roneous." Again, on the same page: " There is no privity of 
contract hetiveen the parents of pupils to he sent to school and the 



140 The "Examiner" and the School Question. 

school-master. Tlie latter is employed and paid by the toivn, and to 
them only is he responsible on his contract." Again, on page 156: 
''Parents have no remedy as against the teachers. As a general 
thing, the only persons who have a legal right to give orders to 
the teacher are his employers, namely : the committee in some 
States, and in others the directors or trustees. If his conduct 
is approved of by his employers, the parents have no remedy 
against him or them." 

Now is there no conflict between the statute law, as here ex- 
pounded, and the natural law, as above laid down ? When the 
natural law declares that, in the business of education, "the 
teacher is only the agent, and that the parent is the principal,''' while 
the statute law proclaims that " there is no privity of contract 
between the parents of pupils to be sent to school, and the 
school-master," is there no conflicb there? When the natural 
law binds the parent "to inform himself of the peculiar habits, 
and reflect upon the probable future situation of his child, and 
deliberately to consider what sort of education will most con- 
duce to his future happiness and usefulness," while the statute 
law undertakes to transfer this important duty to a board of 
twelve politicians — who never saw the child, and who know ab- 
solutely nothing of ii^ peculiar habits, or its probable future situa- 
tion — is there, we ask, no conflict there ? When the law of nature 
says to the parent that he is bound to select such instructors as 
will best accomplish the results which he believes loill be most 
beneficial to his child, while the school law reposes this duty in 
the hands of a board of education, who are in no manner amen- 
able to the parents, is there no conflict there? 

In the month of May, 1867, Mr. John Swett, in an address 
delivered before the Teachers' Institute, held in this city, said : 

' ' We have a course of study, established by law, by means 
of which teachers are enabled to pursue an intelligent system 
of instruction, in spite of the prejudices of parents who are too 
ignorant to comprehend the purpose of a school." (See June num- 
ber California Teacher, page 821.) 

Now, as to the merits of this intelligent system of instruc- 
tion, which teachers in this city and State are enabled to pursue 
in spite of parents, there is no difference of opinion between 
the Examiner and ourselves. We furnished some specimens of 
this intelligent instruction in the card which the Examiner was 
kind enough to publish. Under this "intelligent system of in- 



The "Examiner" and the School Question. 141 

stri(c/ion," the teacher is enabled, iu spiie of parents, to fill the 
miuds of our country's youth with the most infernal tissue of 
ridiculous falsehoods that ever emanated from the diseased 
brain of fanaticism. This fact the Examiner will not question. 
No one can question it who will take the pains to examine the 
school literature iu use in this city. We are persuaded, too, 
that our contemporary will not disagree with us when we assert 
that every parent is hound b/j the law of Nature to protect his oivn 
children against the baneful influence of these false teachings. Is 
there, then, we again repeat, no conflict between this law of Na- 
ture, which, on the one hand, binds the parent not to allow cer- 
tain things to be taught to his child, and this law of John 
Swett on the other, which enables the schoolmaster to 'teach 
those very things in spite of the parents? Here, then, is the 
great radical wrong in the present common school system, of 
which Ave complain; namely: that it subordinates the authority 
of the parent over his own child, to the authority of the State, 
and leaves the former powerless to do that which the law of Na- 
ture makes it criminal in him to omit. It will not do to say 
that the parent can protect his child from false teachings by 
keeping it at home, and thus forfeiting his interest in the school 
fund, for there would still be a conflict between that divine law 
which requires the parent to protect his child from false teach- 
ings, and that human law which would force him to pay a for- 
feit for rendering obedience to such divine law. Were these 
two laws in harmony, the one could not impose a penalty for 
a compliance with the other. Could any proposition be clearer 
than this ? What says the Examiner ? 

Now, what we desire, is to see our common school system 
made to harmonize with the great eternal and unchanging laws 
of Nature. We wish to see parental authority once more recog- 
nized as paramount iu the great work of education. Wo are 
not a stickler for any set form of details, but shall gladly accept 
any plan which does not conflict with the natural and inalien- 
able rights and duties of jjarents. 

While Avo are committed to no specific plan, Ave can see no 
serious objections to the main outlines of the one which the 
Examiner attributes to us, when it supposes that under our 
contemplated plan, those parents who do ' ' agree, can get up a 
school, select the teachers, and let others do the same, and the 
school fund is to be distributed among the schools in propor- 
tion to the number of their scholars." 



142 The "Examined" and the School Question. 

Now, we have already learned from Dr. Wayland, that, under 
the moral law, whenever the teacher and the parent cannot agree, 
the connection must be dissolved ; and unless this proposition be 
denied, it necessarily follows, that only those parents who can 
aoree upon a given school, can, without a violation of Nature's 
laws, send their children to it. 

"But," says the Examiner, "this would seem to do away with 
the public school system, and would only supply a common 
fund to divide among private schools, not conducted on any 
common plan." 

Suppose that all this were even so; suppose that the common 
school system is so utterly repugnant in its every feature, to the 
all-wise decrees of God Almighty, that either His laws must be 
set at naught, or else the whole common school system, with 
its entire paraphernalia of Lincoln School-houses, Swett's 
Readers, Lossing's Histories, and John Brown Songs must 
come toppling down. "What then? Why, even then, the whole 
question Avould simply resolve itself into this proposition, 
namely : Is it better to obey the laws of God Almighty, or the 
laws of Mr. Swett? since it is impossible to obey both. 

We know that the carrying out of these plain provisions of the 
natural law would not destroy anything in the common school sys- 
tem which is worth preserving. While the enforcement of that law 
would restore parental authority and place it beyond the power 
of a board of school directors to force upon any child, teachings 
and doctrines obnoxious to its parents, it Avould still leave un- 
disturbed the authority of the State to provide a common school 
fund, so as to place the means of an education within the reach 
of all; and to apply that fund to the support of such schools as 
the parents themselves might select for that purpose. 

This, after all, is the leading object — in fact, we may say the 
only legitimate object of a common school system, namely: to 
aid parents to educate their children in such manner as "they 
helieve loill he most 'beneficial,'" and not to force upon those chil- 
dren a code of instruction antagonistic to the judgments and 
consciences of their Heaven-ordained guardians. 

If the plan which we propose, of allowing every parent to se- 
lect his own teacher, and of paying every teacher according to 
the number of his pupils, be thought impracticable, what must 
be said of the practicability of the present system ; of a system 
which proposes to force every child of every conceivable call- 



The "Examiner" and the School Question. 143 

bre, from the massive braiu of a Webster down to the dwarfed 
and pigmied intellect of a John Swett, to wear the same educa- 
tional habiliments ? An effort on the part of the State to force 
every man and lad in the land to wear hats, boots and panta- 
loons, precisely of the same make and size, would not be more 
supremely ridiculous or impracticable than the plan of forcing 
what they call a uniform system of education on every child 
that goes to school. Our talented and worthy Superintendent 
of Public Instruction — that soon is to be, thank God — has well 
and truthfully said : ' ' Our people, representing every State in 
the Union, and every country in Europe, will not contentedly 
wear any provincial straight-jacket that may be provided for 
them." 

Let all those who have the framing of our school laws, as well 
as those entrusted with their administration, keep this fact in 
view, and faithfully act upon it, and vve shall have occa- 
sion to witness no such scenes as that which transpired in this 
city only three nights ago, when some 785 parents appealed in 
vain for a teacher of their choice, to a body of men, who never 
should, and never could without a violation of one of nature's 
highest and holiest laws, have been clothed with power to 
thwart their wishes. 

We cannot better conclude this already too lengthy article, 
than by extracting another pasaage from the able editorial of 
Eev. O. P. Fitzgerald, just quoted from the Spectator, which 
says: 

'Natives and foreign born. Northerners and Southerners, 
Catholics and Protestants, Jews and Gentiles, are all here, and 
all have equal rights and common interests. Can they agree 
on a system of public instruction that will be satisfactory to 
all? This is the question to be tested, and the result will de- 
termine the intelligence, the moderation and the liberality of 
our people.^ 

Let our Washington-street contemporary unite with us on 
this platform, and the Examiner and Occidental need never quar- 
rel on the school question.* 

"Occidental, November 29, 1867. 



144 The Case of Willie Craine. 

CHAPTEE XXIX. 

WILLIE CRAINE AND THE BOARD OF EDUCATION — A BOY SEVEN YEARS 
OLD SENT TO THE CITY PRISON FROM THE PUBLIC SCHOOL ON A 
FALSE CHARGE OF STEALING JEWELRY FROM HIS LADY TEACHER. 

Taken all in all, tlie following report constitutes one of the 
most remarkable attempts at wliite-washiug an infamous pro- 
ceeding that we Lave ever liacl the misfortune to witness. In 
the midst of the ridiculous jumble of words which go to make 
up the committee's report, Ave have sought in vain for light 
touching what should have been the chief subject of inquiry. 
It had been charged through the public prints of this city, and 
copied into almost every newspaper on this coast, that a little 
school boy, named Willie Craine, little more than a sucking 
infant in age, being only seven years old, had been falsely ac- 
cused by a Mrs. Griffith, the principal of his school, with hav- 
ing stolen her breast-pin; that upon this charge, after being 
cruelly whipped, he had been thrown into jail, where he re- 
mained until the finding of the lost pin, in the pocket of his 
accuser, made manifest his innocence. 

It was also charged that the house of this infant's mother had, 
in her absence, been siibjected to a most extraordinary search 
with the hope of finding this precious pin. 

The board of education appointed a committee to investigate 
and report upon these charges, and the following is the result 
of their labors : 

" Tlie Case of Willie Craine. — The majority of the committee 
on the case of Willie Craine presented the following report: 

"To the Honorable Board of Education — Gentlemen; Your 
committee, to whom was referred the matter of Willie Craine, 
have given the matter a thorough investigation, having spent 
the most of three evenings in the examination of some twenty- 
five or more persons, to wit, all who were able to give your 
committee any information in reference to the matter of investi- 
gation, and with these results. We have not elicited the 
slightest particle of evidence to show that Willie Craine, though 
a very disorderly pupil, and a boy of extraordinary untruthful- 
ness and irreliability, was ever whipped or in any way mal- 
treated, or punished in any manner, by his teacher, by the 
principal of the school, Mrs. Griffith, or by the superintendent, 
or that he was the object of severity or harsh treatment in any 
respect. On the contrary, he was treated with the utmost 
leniency and kindness while he persisted in the most cunning 



The Case of Willie Craine. 145 

and consummate falsehood from beginning to end, going from 
one to another Avith the greatest readiness and adroitness. 

"We find Mrs. GriflSth, accompanied by Willie's teacher, called 
to see Mrs. Craine in reference to the missing pin, and not find- 
ing Mrs. Craine at home, they permitted a sister of the Craine 
boy to Ic^k in the cupboard and about the house, hoping to 
recover ii from some place where the boy himself said it had 
been placed. 

" There was nothing before your commiltee to show that the 
teachers in question participaled in any way whalever in the 
search, or committed any act upon the premises which was not 
entirely proper. Failing to find the ])iu, and deceived by the 
various stories of Willie, Mrs. GiJffilh took the Ciaiue boj 
to the Superintendent, Avho, with tlie best of motives, as we 
believe, volunteered his assistance in recovering the plo, for 
the mutual benefit of all parties. Willie Craine, after reitera- 
ting the various stories which he had told the teacher, always 
admitting that he himself had taken the pin, finally said that 
he had given it to his mother, who placed it in her pocket, and 
charged him to say nothing about it. 

"This story, he assured Mr. Pelton and others, was a true 
story. The Superintendent supposing that the pin might be 
recovered from this clue to its whereabouts, went to the police- 
station, accompanied by Willie Craine, having no idea to incar- 
cerate the boy or place him upon trial. In the station-house 
the boy repeated his story (his last story) in accounting for the 
pin. Upon this confession it was thought advisable to detain 
him until his mother could be had; and upon his own confes- 
sion a charge of petty larceny was preferred against him by the 
officer in charge, and the superintendent's name given as the 
complaining party. Meantime, the superintendent had left to 
attend to other business. His detention amounted, as we loarn 
from the Chief of Police, to one hotirand ten minutes. 

' ' Your committee, therefore, conclude that the greatest ex- 
aggeration has been indulged in by those who have undertaken 
to complain of the teacher, in the defense of the boy, Willie 
Craine. All of which is respectfully submitted. 

"Wm. G. Badger. 

"Mr. Pelton desired to state that he was completely misled 
by the boy; he believed in his last lie, namely, that he had stolen 
the pin and given it to his mother, and supposing that the 
officers skilled in detecting crime might follow up the clue, he, 
without the slightest idea of causing his incarceration or prose- 
cution, went down to the police-station, accompanied by the 
boy. After he got down, he made what he believed was a mis- 
' take, and he regretted it. He took the boy into a cell, but he 
was not locked up; and on pressing the child, he got the same 
answer he had received before. He asked the officer what was 
best to do, and the officer determined to keep the boy until his 
10 



146 The Case of Willie Ckaine. 

mother came for him. A charge was made against him by the 
officer, and he (Mr. Pelton) was made complaining witness on 
that charge without his knowledge. The boy was brought up 
next day. He (Mr. Pelton) did represent that the child should 
be sent to the Industrial School, and as ^he is a consummate 
little rogue, he thought so still. As the mother's answers con- 
tradicted the boy, he (Mr. Pelton) left it to the authorities. 
He thought to get at the truth without trouble, and had in- 
curred blame himself." 

Was there ever a more contemptible attempt at evasion than 
is found in the above report of Wm. G. Badger, and the ac- 
companying statement of Mr. P.? We ask, in all sincerity, 
wliat was the chief wrong which Mrs. G. and Mr. P. were 
charged with having inflicted on the infant-pupil? It was not 
certainly the searching of his mother's pockets, nor the admin- 
istering of corporeal punishment, nor even his incarceration in 
a felon's cell. The disarranged apparel of Mrs. Craine could 
soon be re-adjusted, the darkness of a felon's dungeon might, 
after a few short years, cease to be remembered, while the 
stripes inflicted by a teacher's rod would last but a day. Not 
so, however, with those stripes which the tongue of slander 
leaves imprinted on a wounded reputation. Here is a seven- 
year-old child charged with larceny, and that charge has been 
spread upon the records of the Police Court, whence it may be 
exhumed fifty years hence for the purpose of blasting a reputa- 
tion, and mantling with shame the cheeks of those who are now 
unborn. 

Yes, fifty years from to-day, if Willie Craine should have an 
enemy in the world, that enemy would desire no sweeter ven- 
geance than to be able to say: "You, sir, were born a thief, as 
the police records of San Francisco abundantly testify." 

We had hoped that when this investigating committee made 
their report, the public would be informed as to whether it was 
true that Mrs. G. had her breast-pin in her own pocket at the 
very time Willie Craine lay in jail charged with stealing it. 

As will be seen, the committee find among other things that 
the little Craine boy was not ''the object of severity or harsh treat- 
ment in any respect.^'' 

Now if to prefer a false charge of larceny against an infant 
not yet arrived at the use of reason, and to throw that child • 
into a cell x^i'ovided for felons, and to leave the charge still 
standing against him after the missing property has been found 



The Case of Willie Ckmne. 147 

iu the possession of the accuser herself, do not constitute harsh 
treatment then we should like to know what this investigating 
committee would call harsh treatment. 

As regards the child's telling contradictory stories, who can 
wonder at it under the circumstances? Here is a little child 
not yet out of its baby clothes, which stands charged by his 
own niirse, as we may say, with having stolen her breast-pin. 
If he denies the charge, he necessarily joins issue with a person 
whom he has never been allowed to contradict; and he has 
perhaps learned from sad experience that such an experiment 
would necessarily be a hazardous one. By pleading guilty to 
the charge he could at least avoid a present altercation, and 
perhaps a flogging into the bargain. Having once lied as to 
the stealing, it then became necessary for him to lie again as to 
the whereabouts of the article supposed to be stolen, and being 
caught in that lie, the child very naturally concludes that he 
must lie again in order to postpone still further the application 
of the dreaded lash. 

"But," says our worthy superintendent, Mr. P., "Willie 
Craine is a consummate little rogue, and should be sent to the 
Industrial School." Pray how did Mr. P. find out that Willie 
was a rogue? What did he ever steal? Surely not Mrs. G.'s 
breast-pin, if it be true that she had it in her own pocket at 
the very time it was sought for in the pockets of Willie's 
mother. The report of the committee does not charge that the 
child had ever stolen anything. On the contrary, it appears 
from the statement made by Mr. Cornwall, a member of the 
committee, that " the child was perjecthj innocent of anything he- 
yoicl lintruth." 

Now, while we do not pretend to justify untruth — even in a 
seven-year-old boy — we do not believe, nevertheless, that every 
untruth should be punished by imprisonment in the Industrial 
School. If such a rule were to be enforced this very day, we 
wonder how many children there are in California who would 
be permitted to sleep under the parental roof to-night. And 
suppose that Willie Craine did tell a chunk of a lie, why should 
you, Mr. P., be so particularly severe upon him for it ? Who 
knows but that the little fellow may have caught a glimpse of 
the minutes of the proceedings of the board of education of 
this city as they stand recorded for the thirteenth of June, 
1865. If so, he may have read among those minutes the fol- 
lowing proceedings, which we shall put in italics: 



148 The Case of Willie Ciiaine. 

' ' The committee appointed to examine the charges against J. C. 
P., presented the foUoioing report: * ■* * 

''Fourth Charge — That on a number of occasions in his profes- 
sional intercourse and dealings with the board he has been guilty of 
prevarication and falsehood, thereby causing the members of this 
board to lose confidence in him as a man, and more especially as a 
teacher, and forcing on them the conviction of his unfitness to have 
the care and teaching of the susceptible 7ninds of the young. 

" We find that the evidence o/iuitnesses on this charge fully sustain 
it; and in addition, lue have the loritten statement and verbal con- 
fessions of the defendant, lohich were proven to he incorrect. ^ ^ '^ 
The report was adopted. A motion that the report be spread 
upon the minutes was carried." 

The above we extract from the proceedings of the board of 
education of this citj as we find them reported in the Alta Cali- 
fornia of June 14, 1865. For our part, we do not undertake to 
determine whether it was Mr. P. or the board of education that 
lied, but that there is a lie between them, there can be no 
doubt; and, in either event, the Craine boy can point to an 
illustrious example in vindication of what he has done. If the 
board of education told the truth, when it pronounced Mr. P. 
ix liar, then what was more natural than for the child to believe 
that lying was the high road to honorable promotion, since it 
had elevated Mr. P. to his present exalted position, as the very 
€hief of our city educational department? But, on the other 
hand, if it was the board of education that lied, who could 
blame the boy for doing likewise ? 

Is it not, we ask, a singular fact that when Mr. P. reads over 
the black record which he has assisted in making, in order to 
defame the character of this almost sucking babe, he has only 
to turn back a few pages, in the very same book, to find a sim- 
ilar record standing uncanceled and unreversed against him- 
self ? Will not the candid, unbiased reader of these two records 
be forced to exclaim: "Like principal, like pupil."* 

*0ccidental, March 18, 1SG7. 



Ignoi;ance or Mendacity of the "Times." 149 

CHAPTER XXX. 

IGNORANCE OR MENDACITY OP THE "TIMES." 

In the early part of 1867, the Daily Times, a newspaper of 
some prominence then being published in San Francisco, with 
a degree either of recklessness or brazen-faced mendacity truly 
wonderful to contemplate, while descanting on the merits of 
what was then known as the Idaho School Bill, said : 

"Every one knows that Zach. Montgomery, speaking on be- 
half of the Catholic Church, and aided by the Catholic clergy, 
has for years endeavored to secure a division of the school fund." 

Our reply to the Times was as follows: Thus it is, and thus 
it has ever been with the defenders of wrong. Being unable 
successfully to combat the truth with the weapons of reason, 
they hesitate not to assail with falsehood, misrepresentation and 
appeals to real or supposed popular prejudice, a position which 
they know they cannot successfully combat by argument. 

Here are three distinct statements which it is alleged everij~ 
body knoivs to he true, and yet — as our readers know — there is 
not one word of truth in either one of the statements. As re- 
gards the old and thousand times refuted falsehood about our 
seeking to divide the school fund, either for the special benelGit 
of the Catholics or anybody else, we deem it unnecessary to do 
more than refer to any one of our numerous articles defining 
our position on that subject. Let our contemporary either refer 
us to some word that we have uttered, or quote some sentence 
which we have written, going to prove the truth of this charge; 
or else let him forever cease to propagate the foul slander. 

The Times charges that, in our advocacy of school reform, we 
are speaking on behalf of the Catholic church. Now we chal- 
lenge this veracious journal to produce a single sentence or 
syllable we have ever written or spoken, touching the school 
question, from which it could legitimately be inferred, even by 
the most diseased imagination, that we were speaking any more 
on behalf of the Catholics than on behalf of Methodists, Bap- 
tists, Presbyterians or Jews. When Ave proclaim the natural 
and universally-received truth, that every child is entitled to the 
milk of its mother's breast, can it be argued that we are "speak- 
ing Qu behalf of the Catholic church," simply because Catholic 
mothers feed their children on that nourishing and life-giving 



150 Ignoeance oe Mendacity op the "Times." 

beverage ? Can it be es;pected that the intelligent and affection- 
ate Protestant mother will tear the nipple from the toothless 
grasp of her angel babe, and leave it to starve, simply because 
some psalm-singing, long-visaged, lantern-jawed, nasal-twanged, 
hypocritical editor cries out that the suckling of babies is a 
Cathol'iG measure ? And is it any more reasonable to suppose 
that intelligent Protestants, Jews or non-religionists will con- 
sent to withdraw all parental care and guardianship from their 
children, in the important matter of education, leaving the des- 
tiny of their little ones in the hands of Godless, heartless and 
soulless corporations, to be prostituted in mind and morals; 
murdered with foul air, or incarcerated in a felon's dungeon 
upon false charges of larceny — as was the case with little seven- 
year-old Willie Craine, the other day — and all for fear that if 
they ask for a remedy for these intolerable wrongs, some witch- 
drowning, Quaker-burning bigot will sing out " This is a Catho- 
lic measure?^' 

We now tell our bigoted contemporary of the Times that we 
neither speak, nor have authority to speak, for the Catholic 
church. That church has her duly authorized expounders, who 
have been commissioned to speak for her; but we are not one 
of those expounders. When we uphold the right of parents to 
direct and control in the matter of the child's education, we 
assert a principle which is applicable to all parents of all creeds, 
clim.es and countries : a principle which is older than the Cath- 
olic church or the Mosaic law, and which dates far back into 
the very morning-twilight of creation. 

As to the aid which we are accused of having received from 
the Catholic clerg}-, we could wish that we were less able to plead 
not guilty to the charge. It is true that a number of the Catholic 
clergymen, as well as a considerable number of Protestant 
clergymen, have subscribed for our paper, and paid their sub- 
scriptions, and that most of the Catholic clergy, in common with 
very many of the more honest and intelligent Protestant clergy, 
are friendly to the plan of educational reform which we advo- 
cate, we are prepared to believe; but ours not being a religious 
organ, and fighting the school question as it does, not on a de- 
nominational basis, but on the broad ground of universal right, 
discussing the question sometimes from a moral and sometimes 
irom a political standpoint, the Catholic clergy, as such, have 
lor reasons satisfactory to themselves taken no part whatever 



Ignorance or Mendacity of the "Times." 151 

in the contest. We have given publicity through our paper to 
a number of able communications from Protestant clergymen 
who take sides with us on this educational question, but on no 
occasion have we either published or been asked to publish one 
line or letter from a Catholic priest. So far as the Catholic laity 
are concerned, if there is any class of religionists of whom we 
feel that we have especial right to complain for the lukewarm 
support which they have rendered us in our struggle for educa- 
tional reform, it is this very class. We know that we speak 
within bounds when we say that three out of five of our sub- 
scribers are either Protestants, Jews, or non-religionists. Let 
any one who doubts the truth of this statement refer to files 
of our paper, read the names of our patrons as reported in 
the lists of payments received, and satisfy himself. 

No, no, Mr. Times, this throwing of anti-Catholic bomb-shells, 
where you strike Protestants, Catholics and non-religionists 
indiscriminately, will never win. You are simply wasting your 
ammunition, and rendering yourself ridiculous. So prick up 
your long ears and try some other dodge.* 

*Occidental, February 18, 1867. 



152 Superintendent Swett's Reading-Book. 

CHAPTER XXXI. 

SUPERINTENDENT SWETT'S PUBLIC SCHOOL READINGS — A CHOICE 
SPECIMEN — HOW TO ASCERTAIN A TEACHER's POLITICS, BY EXAM- 
INING HIM IN HISTORY. 

lu 1867, two years after the close of tlie late terrible civil 
war, at a time when all riglit-minded people of all sections and 
all parties were earnestly endeavoring to heal up the ghastly 
wounds which the sword had inflicted on our country, Mr. 
John Swett, our then superintendent of public instruction, 
compiled and published a reading-book for use in our public 
schools. The book was entitled "Common School Readings," 
and we venture to say a viler book was never compiled to be 
placed in the hands of children. It is made up principally 
from speeches and poems of prominent radicals; and care seems 
to have been taken to select some of the most inflammatory and 
outrageous passages that the diabolism engendered by the war 
produced. As a specimen of these, we copy an extract from a 
speech delivered by A. A. Sargent, on "The Danger of Ex- 
asperating the Rebels." It occurs on page 161 of Swett's "Com- 
mon School Readings," and runs as follows: 

' ' In all ages, respect for the dead has been held to be a neces- 
sary virtue in a brave and generous character. To inflict out- 
rage upon a slain enemy even has heretofore been confined to 
dark corners of the earth. Such practices are too vile and 
mean to be tolerated in the light of civilization. Hence the 
fiendish spirit of the rebel leaders is painfully apparent in the 
treatment of our heroic dead. They were stripped naked, and 
left for days unburied. 

"Many were buried in trenches face downward, as a mark of 
indignity. Some were boiled to get the bones for trophies, 
and heads cut ofl; that the skulls might be kept for drinking- 
cups. Many human bones were found scattered through the 
rebel huts sawed into rings. By acts of violence and crimes 
like these the rebels signalized their first victory over the army 
of the Republic. 

"With savage and malignant hate they tortured, slew and 
desecrated. The monstrous treason which was commenced in 
perjury and theft was continued in cowardly cruelty and bar- 
barism." 

This is simply a specimen twig, plucked from the infernal 
fagot of incendiary falsehoods with which the man to < whom 
the State had intrusted the guardianship of our children 



Superintendent Swett's Eeading-Book. 153 

sought to light up in their young minds and hearts the undying 
fires of sectional bitterness and hatred. 

Another feature in this book of Swett's is the want of mod- 
esty which would seem to characterize some of its selections. 
For example, on page 169, occurs a poem of J. G. Saxe, 
entitled "Pyramus and Thisbe," full of low, sickly senti- 
mentality, not to say downright obscenity. But for the dis- 
gusting character of the poem we can only refer the reader to 
the book, as we do not care to soil our pages by quoting it. 

Thus, good reader, you behold the character of the man who 
for eight consecutive years wielded the educational destinies of 
the State of California; perpetually pouring the poison of his 
pestiferous imagination into the minds and hearts of our chil- 
dren. Is it any wonder that our State penitentiary is now 
crowded with young men and boys? 

Not only have our school-books been written and forced into 
the hands of children with an eye to the lowest and basest 
partisan ends, but even the examinations of applicants for posi- 
tions as teachers in the public schools have, in many instances, 
been conducted more with the view of ascertaining the politics 
of- the applicants than of determining as to their fitness for the 
positions to which they were aspiring. 

To this end a series of questions upon which to examine 
teachers were framed and adopted during the administration 
of Mr. Swett, of a quasi-political character, upon which ques- 
tions the two great parties of the country were then honestly di- 
vided, and which radical Republicans were pretty sure to answer 
one way, and radical Democrats another; for example, here are 
a few of the questions of history which composed a part of the 
formula for examination of teachers : 

"What was the alleged reason for the secession of the South- 
ern States ? 

' ' The true reason ? 

"What and how was the great rebellion inaugurated? 

"When was the emancipation proclamation issued, on what 
grounds, and what was the efiect on the nation? 

" Draw a contrast between the character of Abraham Lincoln 
and Jefferson Davis." 

This formula was published by the State Superintendent 
Swett in his biennial report for 1864:-5, at page 107. 

These questions being furnished the applicant in advance, it 



154 Superintendent Swett's Reading-Book. 

was not difficult for him to learn from some friend who had pre- 
viously been through the ordeal, what kind of answers would be 
acceptable to the examiners; and if he honestly agreed with 
them in politics, or if he was dishonest enough to profess an 
agreement where there was in fact no agreement, in either 
event he would probably succeed in passing a most creditable 
examination, would get his certificate and at once enter upon 
the business of teaching the rising generation to become 
blind adherents to the party in power. But should the appli- 
cant chance to be neither a radical nor a hypocrite, of course his 
application would be rejected, on the grounds of his being de- 
fective in his knowledge of history. 



Assembly Bill of 1861. 155 



CHAPTER XXXII. 

ASSEMBLY BILL TO AMEND THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL LAW, INTEO- 
DUCED BY Z. MONTGOMERY IN THE CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE, IN 
1861. 

Section 1. Section twelve of the act entitled "An Act to estab- 
lish, support and regulate common schools, and to repeal for- 
mer acts concerning the same," passed May 3, 1855, is amended 
so as to read as follows : 

Sec. 12. Upon receiving notice from the county treasurer, as 
provided in this act, the county superintendent shall apportion 
to the free public schools (as hereinafter designated), the por- 
tion of the public school moneys apportioned to them by the 
State board of education, after which he shall apportion the 
residue of the common school moneys remaining in the county 
treasury amoug the several towns, cities, and school districts, 
in proportion to the number of white children residing therein 
between the ages of four and eighteen, as shown by the last 
previous reports of the common school marshals and others 
charged therewith, and shall forthwith, in writing, notify the 
count}' treasurer of such apportionment in detail; and no school 
district shall be entitled to any portion of the common school 
moneys in which there shall not have been taught a common 
school for three months within the year, ending on the last day 
of October previous. 

Sec. 2. Section thirty-three of the said act is amended so as 
to read as follows : 

Sec. 33. No books, tracts or papers of a sectarian or de- 
nominatioDal character shall be used or introduced in any 
school established under the provisions of this act; nor shall 
sectarian or denominational doctrines be taught therein; nor 
shall any of the public schools established under this act re- 
ceive any of the public school funds, which has not been taught 
in accordance with the principles of this act; provided, lioiuever, 
that any school numbering at least thirty pupils, established or 
adopted by the parents or guardians of such pupils, shall have 
the right to apply, through a board of trustees for said school, 
to the State Superintendent of public instruction, to be in- 
rolled among the })ublic schools, under the appellation of Free 
Public Scliools, and to receive a pro rata share of the public 



156 Assembly Bill of 1861. 

school funds, subject to the following regulations and pro- 
visions : 

First. That the usual branches of a common English educa- 
tion shall be well taught in such school for at least five hours 
a day. 

Second. That no religion be taught therein, unless such be 
the will of said parents or guardians; and in no event shall 
such religious instructions lessen the five hours of secular edu- 
cation. 

Third, That in places where there shall be no public schools 
within an area of one mile, any parent or guardian shall have 
the right to send any male child to said school, if it be a school 
for boys; or any female child, if it be a school for girls; and 
whenever said parent or guardian, male or female, shall object, 
in writing, to the principal teacher of said school, to the re- 
ligious instruction given therein, upon such objection, it shall 
be the duty of the teachers of said school to give no religious 
instructions during five successive hours of secular education, 
and to allow said child to retire from school before any relig- 
ious instruction be commenced; any school violating this pro- 
vision shall be deprived of its pro rata share of the school 
moneys for one year. 

Fourth. The State Superintendent of public instruction, or 
any deputy appointed by him for that purpose, the county 
judge, and the clerk of the county, shall visit said school at 
least twice in each year, and at all other times at their discre- 
tion, to examine its pupils, and vigilantly inspect its manage- 
ment, order and discipline. They shall also furnish the State 
Superintendent of public instruction and the trustees of said 
school with a written certificate of such visit and examination 
at least twice a year. 

Fifth. On the first Thursday after the formation of said 
school, and on the last Thursday of January of every year, the 
parents and guardians of the pupils of said school shall meet 
at a time and place publicly announced at least ten days previ- 
ously by the State Superintendent of public instruction, and 
shall elect from among themselves a president, treasurer, super- 
intendent, and secretary, who shall be the trustees of said 
school for one year, and until their successors are elected and 
qualified. Said trustees shall appoint or remove the teachers, 
shall superintend the school, shall cause a regular roll to be 



Assembly Bill of 1861. 157 

kept, and shall send to the State Superintendent of public in- 
struction a formal application that said school be enrolled 
among the public schools of the State at its first organization. 
They shall also send to the State Superintendent quarterly re- 
ports of said school, with full details as to number of pupils, 
classes, etc., together with copies of the same annual certificates 
above specified. Tltey shall also make application by their 
treasurer, countersigned by their president, to draw the pro 
rata share of the public fund, to be applied to the benefit of 
said school, and shall hand over to their successors all books, 
moneys and other articles belonging to said school. 

Sixth. The State SuiDerintendent of public instruction shall 
order a pro rata appropriation of the public school moneys 
upon such application of the said trustees, through their trea- 
surer, supported by two satisfactory sureties; provided, that the 
said State Superintendent of public instruction, the State Trea- 
surer and the Governor of the State, or a majority of them, 
shall be satisfied, from the report and certificates of said school, 
and othei'wise, that said school has been conducted in all re- 
spects in accordance with the provisions of this section. 

Seventh. On or about the twentieth day of October, of every 
year,- the State Superintendent of public instruction shall, to- 
gether with the Governor, and the Surveyor-general of the 
State, examine the reports and certificates of the free public 
schools for the previous year, and should they, or a majority of 
them, find such schools, or any of them, to have faithfully com- 
plied with the provisions of this section, they shall determine 
and signify through ih.Q State Superintendent of public instruc- 
tion Avhat apportionment of the school funds should be allowed 
to such schools respectively; said apportionment to be made 
according to the number of children attending school in the 
county in which said free public school may be; such appor- 
tionment shall be transmitted by the State Superintendent of 
public instruction to the president of the board of trustees of 
such free public schools, and also a duplicate of the same to 
the county superintendent, who shall indorse the orders for 
said apportionment to the treasurer of the board of free public 
schools by the president of the same board. 

Eighth. This amendment shall have effect from and after its 
passage. 



158 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

opening speech oe z. montgomery on the school bill. 

On Wednesday, April 10, 1861, the subject of the foregoing 
bill being the special order of the day, Z. Montgomery, in sup- 
port of the bill, said: 

Mr. Speaker : I confess that 1 approach this subject with a 
great deal of diffidence, combined with an equal amount of 
interest; with diffidence, because I feel my utter inability to do 
justice to the subject under consideration; with interest, be- 
cause I feel that there is no subject of legislation so important 
as that which we now have to consider; and hence I trust 
that every member of this body will throw aside all external 
influences, and deal with the question before us by the light of 
his own reason and judgment. I approach the subject with 
diffidence also from the fact that false impressions have gone 
abroad relative to the real objects of the bill which we are now 
considering; and because newspaper appeals have been made 
to the public, and to this body, in order, as I believe, to divert 
the attention of the legislature from the real objects contemplated 
by this bill. The subject of education is certainly one that is 
well worth the consideration of any government, and especially 
of a republican government; for, in the language of the immortal 
Washington : " In proportion as government gives force to pub- 
lic opinion, in the same proportion should public opinion be 
enlightened." Sir, I feel that I am now pleading the cause, not of 
a railroad company, not of a political party scrambling for office 
but the cause of hundreds of thousands— yea, of millions— yet 
unborn, in whose hands is to be intrusted the helm of govern- 
ment, when we, sir, shall have been laid to sleep in the cold 
grave. Sir, as we educate our youth, so we may look forward 
to liberty, prosperity and National happiness, on the one hand, 
or to tyranny and National misery on the other. 

I shall, I trust in God, say nothing that will offend the senti- 
ments, or the prejudices, so to speak, of any of my fellow-mem- 
bers upon this floor; and if, in the heat of debate, I should say 
anything that ruffles the feelings of any one, I trust he will at- 
tribute it to the interest I feel in my subject, and not to any 
deliberate intention on my part to offend. 

What is the object of a common school education ? I under- 
stand it to be, so far as the State is concerned, simply to make 
good citizens of the rising generation. Keeping steadily in view 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 159 

this object, namely, the making of good citizens by cultivating the 
head and heart, so far as is necessary for that purpose, we come 
to another point, and that is, how far should government inter- 
fere with the peculiar notions of the parents of children, in es- 
tablishing a system of common school education. There is a 
boundary beyond which government should not go; there is a 
circle within which it should oj^erate. 

Now let us examine where that boundary is. I lay it down 
as a principle, that the government should, for educational pur- 
poses, subject neither parent nor child to any more restraint 
than is necessary for the accomplishment of the desited end. 
In other words, that both parent and child should be left per- 
fectly free as regards everything which does not counteract the 
acquirement, by the child, of a good common school educa- 
tion . Does anybody deny this ? The government should not 
prescribe the particular kind of dress which the child should 
wear, nor the diet which he should eat. That is a matter with 
which government has nothing to do. The government should 
not interfere with the religious sentiments of any child, whether 
he be the child of a Christian, Pagan, or Jew. That is a mat- 
ter that belongs to the parent, and to the parent alone, while 
the child is in its infancy, and the government should not in- 
terfere in it. And mark you, whenever the government does 
interfere, either directly or indirectly, with any of those liber- 
ties which belong to us as individuals, that moment she drives 
us from the common schools, and defeats entirely the object of 
the common school system. For example, suppose a system of 
education to be such that no member of the Methodist church 
could conscientiously send a child to a school conducted upon 
that system, is not every member of that denomination thereby 
deprived of all the benefits of the system? So if you establish 
such a system that a member of the Baptist church, or of the 
Presbyterian church, or of the Koman Catholic church, cannot 
conscientiously send his children to the schools, you defeat en- 
tirely, so far as he is concerned, the purposes of the common 
school system, although it might be, in other respects, the most 
perfect system in the world. 

Again, if the teachers are such that the parents will not in- 
trust their children to their charge, do not those parents and 
their children lose the entire benefit of your common school 
education ? Non-attendance is the result whenever you under- 



160 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

take to encroacli upon the rights of individuals, to whatever 
creed or party they belong. Now, let us illustrate. How is it 
here in our own State ? I have before me the report of the su- 
perintendent of public instruction, from which it appears that 
there are within the State of California 57,917 children entitled 
to attend the public schools; and there are but 26,993 that at- 
tend any public schools at all. Less than one-half of the chil- 
dren in this State entitled to attend the public schools ever go 
inside the doors of those schools. You may tell me, perhaps, 
that the rest go to private schools. But I find that there are 
only 5438 that attend private schools, all told; and the remain- 
der of your children — nearly one-half— neither go to private 
nor public schools from the beginning to the close of the year. 
Here is a stubborn fact! More than one half of the object of 
your school system is destroyed at one fell swoop; one-half of 
the children of the State are deprived of the education that be- 
longs to them; $200,000 and more are taken from those chil- 
dren to whom it rightfully belongs, and transferred to those 
for whom it was never designed. 

But perhaps you will tell me that this results from the fact 
that in out of the way counties, where the population is sparse, 
the children do not live within the reach of schools. Well, to 
meet that objection 1 will go down to San Francisco and take 
her common school system and see how it operates there, as 
that is supposed to be the center of enlightenment. I do not 
say this by way of throwing any slur upon San Francisco as a 
city. I know there are many excellent people there, and this 
may be one reason why their public schools are so badly pat- 
ronized. I find that in the city of San Francisco there are 
9,025 children entitled to attend the public schools. I find 
that the children, all told, who attend public and private 
schools, amount to 6,108, and upward of 2,000 of these attend 
private schools, which leaves about 4,000 of the total of 
9,000 children in San Francisco who attend the public 
schools at all, from the beginning to the close of the year. 
Less than half of that proportion attend daily, and yet they 
have daily schools there throughout the year. They have 
twenty schools in San Francisco that are kept open over nine 
months in the year; and yet I find, attending public and private 
schools altogether, there are but 2,830 children in average 
daily attendance. I cite this as an instance. There, in San 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 161 

Francisco, where the amount of money collected during the 
past year for school purposes Avas upwards of $188,000, I 
find that a little more than one-third of the children reap the 
entire benefit of that amount of money, and the other two- 
thirds reap none. Is this a matter of no consequence to us? 
The proportion in Sacramento is nearly the same. Now let us 
see further into the causes which operate to deter the attend- 
ance of children upon our common schools, and, if possible, let 
us come up like men and remove these causes. Let us not 
shrink back or be appalled by the cry of bigotry and sectarian- 
ism, but let us come up and look the question square in the 
face. If the measure is fair and equal, if it treats all alike, 
whether Christians, Pagans, or Jews, and if it does remove one 
of the great obstacles in the way of a good common school 
education, I then ask you to come up like men to the Avork and 
carry it through. Now as to the causes which are keeping the 
children from school. I find from the reports of the county 
superintendents of many localities in this State, that the cause 
of non-attendance, in many cases, is dislike of parents for their 
teachers. I find in the report of the superintendent of Santa 
Cruz county the following: "I find almost invariably that if 
the parents do not have friendly feelings toward the teachers, 
they will not allow their children to attend." That is perfectly 
natural. And he goes on to say: "Some measure should be 
adopted to compel their attendance." To compel their attend- 
ance? What! to compel a parent to send his child to a teacher 
whom he abhors? Yes, that's the remedy. Now, it may be that 
these teachers are competent, and it may be that they are not. 
Let us learn from the reports of the superintendents. I read from 
the report of the superintendent of Alameda county, where he says: 
" We have a few first-class teachers, but the majority of them 
have need to learn. Some of them are very deficient in read- 
ing and writing, but qualified in other respects." Very de- 
ficient in reading and writing, but qualified i:i other respects! 
That is, they do not know the lower branches, but they know 
the higher ones remarkably well! And yet, the superintendent 
of Santa Cruz county would have a law passed to compel chil- 
dren to go to school where they could neither learn to read nor 
write. 

But there are other causes in the way of the attendance of 
children at school, some of which I will inquire into. One of 
li 



162 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

them is this : We have here in California a mixed population, 
coming from every quarter of the globe — some of the most de- 
graded, unprincipled and criminal amongst those that bear the 
name of man. They have come here, from the prisons of Great 
Britain and France, and of every country in Europe, as well as 
of our Eastern cities. They mix with our population. Their 
children have learned infamy and crime from their parents, from 
the day they were born to the day when they reached a period 
suitable to attend school. And what is the consequence? Why, 
sir, the virtuous parent, after paying his taxes for school pur- 
poses, must either keep his children at home, or send them to 
school to mingle with the vilest of the vile. These are facts. I 
see the gentleman from San Francisco taking notes, and I trust 
^Jie will take notes. I appeal to him, as I expect him to reply to 
I me, to say whether, in the city of San Francisco, the public 
schools are not, in many instances, found to be schools of infamy 
of the blackest dye. 

Mr. Banks. I deny the charge most emphatically. 

Mr. Montgomery. He denies the ch ;rge. It is very easy to 
deny charges. I know this, Mr. Speaker, that the crimes to 
which I allude are of |[;oo infamous a characterto be even named 
in this body. ^ ^ * And yet the most virtuous parent must 
- send his sons and his daughters there or, refusing to do so, 
must submit to be denounced as a bigoted sectarian. 

But I shall now turn my attention from San Francisco to her 
smaller sister, the city of MarysviEe. That is the city which 
has remonstrated against the passage of a bill for the bettering 
of the character of her public schools. I read from an article 
published in a late number of the Marysville Express. The 
article is a communication from a man who lived an immediate 
door neighbor to a common school in that city. The writer, in 
speakiug of the character of the school, says: 

' ' I have children, and every day of school they listen to vol- 
umes of profanity, to language that almost stinks! It may be 
said, 'Keep your children in the house.' Suppose I do, the 
vile oaths steal through the cracks, crawl on the floor, and leap 
to the ear of the innocent child, even at the family altar." 

And yet, sir, it so happens that Marysville is the only place 
in California that has remonstrated against the passage of this 

bill. 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 163 

Mr. Speaker, our constitution guarantees religious liberty to 
every citizen of the State. Section four of article one of the 
constitution of California, reads: , 

"The free exercise, and enjoyment of religious profession 
and worship, without discrimination or preference, shall for- 
ever be allowed in this State; and no person shall be rendered 
incompetent to be a witness on account of his opinions on mat- 
ters of religious belief," etc. 

Now, how does the school system, as at present conducted, 
comport with this idea of religious liberty? Does not religious 
liberty embrace the right of the parent to inculcate his own re- 
ligious principles into the mind of his child ? Is not that a part 
and parcel of religious liberty? And, sirs, does not this relig- 
ious libert}^ consist as much in protecting your children from the 
contaminating influences of that vice which is acknowledged by 
all to be vice, as it does in protecting them against the pecul- 
iar tenets of another denomination of Christians? Why, if it is a 
question of protecting a Baptist against having his child, or chil- 
dren, imbued with Methodistical doctrines, you would say that 
is a right which he can claim. If it is a question of protecting 
a Presbyterian against having his children imbued with Catholic 
doctrines, you will say that is a right which he cfm justly claim, 
and so he can. But if it is a question of a Catholic, Methodist, 
or Baptist, protecting his children against the contaminating in- 
fluences of vice and crime, in its most odious and horrible de- 
formity, if he asks to be exempted from the necessity of paying 
taxes for the privilege of sending his children to a school that is 
filled with crime and immorality, then you will call it sectari- 
anism. 

We hear a great deal of complaint about parents not taking 
interest in the common schools of this country. It is a common 
complaint that runs through the reports of nearly every county 
superintendent of public instruction in this State. They say 
the parents take no interest in the subject of public education. 
Whilst on this subject, I will read a few appropriate remarks in 
this connection, delivered by the Rev. Mr. Fitzgerald, a well 
known Methodist minister, at Vacaville, on the twenty-seventh of 
February. Inregardto the want of interest which parentstakein 
our common school system he says : ' ' We should very carefully 
guard against abuses that are liable to arise from thelettingout 
of the instruction of our children by contract. Such contracts 



164 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

are usually performed with an eye rather to the salary than to* 
the public interests. The common school system, with all its 
conceded benefits, is attended with its dangers — one of which 
is the lack of interest and sense of responsibility on the part of 
parents. The State is left to manage the whole subject. 
Taxed indirectly for the support of the common schools, the 
parent has little feeling of ownership in them, and consequently 
but slight interest in looking after their management. I have 
known a father in this State — an intelligent gentleman, too, and 
a good citizen — who could not tell me the name of the teacher 
to whom his son was being sent at the public school." 

This is but an illustration of the complaint that is everywhere 
heard in regard to the want of interest the public feel in the com- 
mon schools of the country. I shall endeavor to show still fur- 
ther why it is. Sir, go to any government upon earth, and wher- 
ever you find that the people directly interested have but little 
to do in any subject of government, you will find that they 
take but little interest in it. Go to any absolute despotism, 
where the whole power is vested in one man, and look abroad 
among the masses of the peo;")le. You will find that they take no 
interest in the government, simply because the government is 
placed beyond their reach. Now, this is a principle that applies 
to our common school system in this country. Who is it that has 
the management of the common schools ? Is it the parents of 
children, who are directly interested in the subject, and to whom 
the great Creator of the universe has entrusted the care, cus- 
tody, and education of those little ones ? Why, your teachers 
are emploj^ed by a board of trustees who are elected at our gen- 
eral elections. Who are those trustees ? Why, they are men 
whose names are placed on a particular ticket, in consequence of 
the influence that they can bring to bear on election day. 
Picture to yourself two individuals on election day going to the 
polls to vote for school trustees. The one is a high-minded, 
virtuous citizen, and the father of a dozen children, if you please. 
The other is a drunken vagabond — a man who has no interest 
in heaven nor in earth — a man who has neither property, 
children, nor reputation — and that man has as much power in 
determining who shall be the teachers as has this father of a 
dozen children, who values their welfare above all earthly con- 
siderations. In proportion, then, as you take the power from 
the hands of those who are interested in the subject, in the 



Opening- Speech on School Bill. 165 

same proportion do tliej give up all interest in it. The teachers 
are not responsible to the parents; thej are responsible to the 
board of trustees, and the board of trustees are responsible not 
to the parents, but to everybodj^ and therefore to nobody — for 
what is everybody's business, we all know, is nobody's business. 
Thus the teachers, in the language of the Rev. Mr. Fitzgerald, 
look rather to the subject of their pay than to any other con- 
sideration. What is the consequence? Why, we have a class of 
roving, carpet-bag teachers. From the report of the superin- 
tendent of public instruction, we learn that there are in -this 
State but 265 public school teachers who follow their occupation 
as a business; while, on the other hand, there are 666Avho were 
following it as a mere temporary occupation, for the want of 
something else to do; 566 teachers of that class are now hav- 
ing the charge of the children who attend the public schools 
of this State. Again, in San Francisco, where they certainly 
have not the most virtuous population in the world, they have 
seventeen male teachers and fifty- seven female — fifty-seven 
female teachers to have charge of the boys, young and old, of 
San Francisco! 

It may be asked how the present bill proposes to remove 
these difficulties. I say, first, by placing the education of chil- 
dren more under the immediate control of the parents upon 
whom the God of nature has imposed the education of their 
children. This bill proposes that the jiarents and guardians of 
children should select their own trustees, and those trustees 
should select the teachers. This brings the matter home to the 
parties directly interested; and if they do not, under those cir- 
cumstances, obtain teachers that suit them, it is their own fault. 
Now let us see the advantages of this system. The bill pro- 
poses that whenever a certain number of children — say thirty 
or more -attend one of those free public schools, they shall be 
entitled to their pro rata share of the public money, no matter 
whether they be Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, 
Jews, Infidels, or anything else. I deny and hurl back the 
charge into the teeth of those who make it, that there is one 
particle of sectarianism, from beginning to end, in this bill. 
Now what efi"ect would this have on the teachers? Why, the 
more pupils a teacher could get, the more his pay Avould be. Is 
not that so? And consequently, the teacher would have an in- 
ducement to do justice to every child, and not wantonly offend 



166 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

the feelings, or even the j^rejnclices of any, lest, hj driving the 
child from school, he should affect his own pocket. Hence, if 
he were a Methodist, a Baptist, a Presbyterian, or a Catholic 
teacher, it matters not which, his self-interest would be a strong 
and constant incentive to deal justly both with parent and child. 
Is not that plain ? While under the present system established 
by government, the teacher, being fastened upon the community 
by irresponsible trustees who hold office, it may be, at the hands 
of an unscrupulous political party, may so treat his pupils as to 
drive the last one of them from school, and yet his pay would 
go on all the same. I would like to submit — because I expect 
to hear from the chairman of the committee on education — I 
would like to submit to him the question which he may answer 
in his proper time, as to what he understands by a sectarian 
system of education. I understand by a sectarian system of 
education, a system which gives the preference to one sect over 
another. I do not understand that that is sectarian which pro- 
tects all sects and denominations alike. If it is, we have sev- 
eral sectarian laws already; and our constitution is sectarian, 
because it guarantees to every citizen the right to worship God 
according to the dictates of his own conscience. The consti- 
tution protects alike the Protestant and the Catholic, the Chris- 
tian and the Jew. Again, we have laws which protect the church 
property of every denomination of Christians. Our laws do 
not permit a mob to invade the precincts of one of your Metho- 
dist Churches South, nor one of your Methodist Churches North, 
nor your Presbyterian, nor your Baptist, nor your Catholic 
church. They protect them all alike, and properly so . Again, 
the constitution will not allow a man to be interfered with in 
the free exercise of his religious opinions, be they what they 
may, so long as he does not encroach on the rights of others, 
or on the rights of society. Is this sectarianism ? If it is not, 
this bill is not sectarian. Yet, the report of the chairman of 
the committee on education — and I say the chairman because 
I do not know whether or not anybody else concurred with him 
— although I admit there was no minority report — urges as one 
of the objections against this bill that it is sectarian in character. 
I will read from the report signed by Mr. Blair, of Monterey: 
"By Mr. Blair, from the Committer on Education — The Com- 
mittee reported that Assembly Bill No. 348 should be indefi- 
nitely postponed, because: First, it allows private schools by 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 167 

parents, or religious denominations, to receive their pro rata 
share of the public school fund, whether such private schools 
give instruction to all sexes, classes, etc., of pupils entitled to 
the benefits of the public school fund, or not; Second, it 
permits such private schools supported by the public fund to 
devote a portion of their time to sectarian religi us instruction." 
What he means by "all sexes," I do not know. I don't know 
how many sexes they have in Monterey. 

Mr. Blaik. I will simply say that the gentleman is misrepre- 
senting the report. I will ask him to state the proposition as it 
is, or not at all. 

Mr. MoNTGOMEEY. I was reading from the Union report. 

Mr. Blair. I do not know that it is exactly correct. 

Mr. Montgomery. I merely alluded to it by way of a side re- 
mark. I felt a little tired, and thought I would rest on the 
shoulders of the gentleman from Monterey for a moment. 
[Laughter.] But I read from the gentleman's report: 

*' The spirit of our institutions seems to recognize no sectarian 
religion whatever, further than to secure to all the free exercise 
of their religious faith, and to protect them in the right thereto. 
The children of all citizens — Jews, Pagans and Mahommedans, 
as well as the various Christian sects — are entitled equally to 
all the benefits of our public schools and public school funds, 
and w^e should make no distinction, nor grant any special privi- 
lege therein by laAv." 

Now I call on the gentleman from Monterey, in his own good 
time, to tell me in what particular this bill proposes to make 
any discrimination between sects, or between Christians, 
Pagans or Jews. I say, in charity to the gentleman, that he 
certainly never read the bill, or he w^ould not have talked about 
things that do not exist — that have no reality except in the im- 
agination of the gentleman, and in the columns of certain news- 
papers. Those ideas were never drawn from this bill. 

Mr. Blair. I would like to ask the gentleman whether he as- 
serts, as a proposition, that our government does make any dis- 
crimination ? 

Mr. Montgomery. Certainly not. And I say, does this bill do 
it? and if so, for what denomination does it make a discrimi- 
nation ? 

Mr. Blair. The report does not assert that it does. It does 
assert that for a portion of the time of instruction, religious 



168 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

instruction of some kind or other may be given. I call the gen- 
tleman's attention to that fact. 

Me. Montgomery. Does that not apply equally to Christians, 
Pagans and Jews, Protestants and Catholics alike ? 

Mr, Blair. Certainly. 

Mr. Montgomery. Then where is the propriety of embodying 
in the report an argument based upon religious discrimina- 
tions — where the necessity of building a straw house, of mak- 
ing a scarecrow with which to frighten the public ? I defy any 
candid man to find any such thing in this bill as a discrimina- 
tion in favor of any sect. If there is anything there to operate 
on the Jew, it operates equally hard on the Christian. If 
there is anything that operates hard on the Methodist, it oper- 
ates equally hard on the Catholic — upon all alike. Sir, I repu- 
diate the charge of sectarianism, or bigotry, which I find 
couched in this report; for if there is one thing more than 
another that I do abhor from the inmost recesses of my soul, it 
is a bigot. I would sooner permit my right arm to be severed 
from my shoulder than I would vote for any bill that discrimi- 
nates in favor of any sect. I feel that while I have a right to 
my own particular religious notions, I have no right to enforce 
them on others; I have no right to ask the legislature to dis 
criminate in favor of my particular views. And I tell you here, 
that I should deserve the condemnation, the contempt, the uni- 
ted scorn of my race as long as I should live, if I were to advo- 
cate a bill that contained the principle which is hinted at in this 
report of the gentleman from Monterey. 

This bill only asks that after the demands of the State have 
been complied with, after the accomplishment of the prescribed 
time, whether five, six, or seven hours, it matters not which, 
and I will not be particular as to the number of hours, the bill 
proposes that after the time shall have expired which the State 
thinks it is necessary should be devoted to secular education, 
the children should be free, or rather that the parents should 
be free to have the control of their own children; and if they 
desire to teach them Methodism, Presbyterianism, Catholicism, 
or what not, they have a right to do it. Can the State deny 
this right ? I maintain that if the State can go one inch beyond 
the time which she may determine to be necessary for the pur- 
poses of secular education, she can follow the child into kis 
father's house, attend him by day and by night, and forever 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 169 

shut out from his mind all such religious, or other instruction, 
as the parent might desire to bestow upon him. Can the State 
do this? Can the State, after she has had the benefit of all the 
time which she herself claims to be necessary for secular educa- 
tion, turn to the parent and say: "Although my time has ex- 
pired, still you shall not have the privilege of having your chil- 
dren taught any religious doctrines. You may, after the school 
hours are over, have them taught to curse, and to swear, and 
to use obscene language, and, so far as I, the State, am con- 
cerned, it is all right. You can still continue to draw your school 
moneys, but don't you dare to contaminate them with religious 
doctrines, or you forfeit all interest in the school fund." 

And yet you will tell me this is religious liberty; but I tell 
you that it is the blackest religious and political tyranny. I 
tell you, sir, the opposition to this bill grows not altogether out 
of opposition to any particular creed of Christians, but, when 
the bill is understood, it grows out of opposition to all kinds of 
religion, and I will show it. It does not strike at Catholicism 
alone; it strikes at Presbyterians, at Methodists, at all the de- 
nominations of Christians. I will read from an article which 
appeared in yesterday's Union, in the shape of an extract from 
a San Francisco paper, upon this subject. It is headed: "Tink- 
ering with the School Laws," and refers to this same bill. To 
show how the thing is understood, I will read : 

"No greater evil could befall our State than the creation of 
a law of this character, for it at once makes the State govern- 
ment the propagator of creeds, isms and theories, with which 
the political power, under our sj^stem of government, has noth- 
ing to do, and should have nothing to do. The bill under con- 
sideration allows the formation of schools, independent of the 
regular school authorities, to consist of at least thirty pupils, 
in which school religious doctrine may be taught, if the parents 
of the pupils so desire; and said schools are to draw their pro 
rata of the general school fund. Put such a law in force, and 
in a short time San Francisco would be filled with Methodist 
schools, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Baptist, Unitarian, Lu- 
theran and Episcopal schools, all 'running on their own hook,' 
in one sense of the term, each industriously engaged in cramming 
the minds of the young witli various church creeds and dogmas, 
breeding future generations of schismatics and bigots, who 
will have been brought iip to hate and despise the religious no- 
xious of each other." 

Here, Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians are told that 



170 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

to teach their own children in their own way is to breed schis- 
matics and bigots. If that is so, the argument proves too 
much. Why, sir, have we not ah-eady private schools devoted 
to religious purposes? Are the Methodists, the Baptists, the 
Presbyterians, and the Catholics, willing to admit that their 
private schools, supported by their own funds, for their own 
religious purposes, are the mere instruments of bigotry and 
schism ? If they are willing to admit that, why not abolish all 
religions at once ? It is only one step from it. Is it a fact that 
all religions are but the sources from which spring bigotry, en- 
mity, and schism ? If so, the next step will be to have a con- 
stitutional amendment by which all the religious creeds are to 
be abolished at one fell swoop. I ask if that is not the legiti- 
mate consequence from the reasoning which I have just read. 
But they say that the government ought not to contribute by 
its money to the support of religious denominations. That 
is so. Now let us examine the matter coolly and quietly, like 
men of reason, and see whether this bill proposes to do that 
thing. 

We will suppose there are two schools, one upon the basis pro- 
posed by this bill, and the other upon the basis of the present 
common school system. We will suppose that one of them is 
upon I street, and the other upon J street, in this city; the one 
a free common school, and the other a common school as now 
established. We will suppose there are forty children attend- 
ing each of these schools. These children assemble respectively 
at eight or nine o'clock, if you choose, and they stay till four 
o'clock in the afternoon. In each of those schools, up to four 
o'clock each day, the time is devoted to secular education, and 
to that alone. But when the schools are dismissed, one oi: 
them only dismisses the ordinary classes, and calls up a Bible 
class, if you choose, and the children, at the request of their 
guardians and parents, are taught a lesson in the Testament. 
Now, sirs, why should not both schools draw the same amount 
from the public school funds ? Would not both draw the same 
amount under the proposed system, and then how does the State 
support religious education? Why, sir, she has got all she 
bargained for. She has got her three months in the year, or 
six months, as the case may be, and her five, six or seven hours 
a day, whatever she asks for, just as much in one as in the 
other school, and she pays no more for it. Is not that so ? She 



Opening Speech on School Bill. 171 

pays no more for it, and what is the consequence of refusing 
this privilege ? I will tell you in plain terms what the conse- 
quence is. It is to impose a penalty upon those who impart 
their religious doctrines to their children. It imposes a peualt}', 
and that is the Avhole of it. The one school complies with the 
requirements of the law, and the other school complies with the 
requirements of the law; the one without the addition of any 
religious teaching, and the other with the addition of religious 
teaching. But the one draws its pay, and the other forfeits it. 
Why ? Because the law imposes a penalty, not for failing to 
comply with the requirements of the law in giving the children 
a good common school education; not on that account, but be- 
cause after the common school is over, after the labor of the 
day which the law requires has been performed, the parents see 
fit to have their children taught their religious doctrines. The 
State then imposes a penalty upon their religion, and that is all 
of it. And 5'et we are told this is religious liberty; and to 
doubt it is bigotry and sectarianism! If so, I prefer to be a 
bigot and a sectarian, and I shall glory in the name. If to 
plead for the equality of my fellow-citizens, so far as to allow 
each man to teach his own child whatever creed he pleases, be 
bigotry, I say that bigotry has become honorable, at least in 
the eyes of honorable men. 

But they say that this system will split up the common school 
fund. Now, I beg the attention of every member wiiile I refer 
to that subject. They say it will split up the common school 
fund, and thereby destroy its virtue and ejBteet. Now, I am free 
to admit that it will split np the common school fund to some 
extent, and if the splitting up is a benefit, and not a disadvan- 
tage, let us split it, that is all. It is now split into several hun- 
dred pieces. Why? Because it is thought to be a benefit to 
split it. You do not keep it all in San Francisco, or in Sacra- 
mento. Why? Because it is thought best to send a little of it 
up to Marysville, where they have that excellent public school 
I have referred to, and a little of it to Shasta, and a little of it 
to Trinity, and there it is divided up again into various parcels 
among the childrfen of these counties. Why? Because it is 
thought that such a division is beneficial. It is not always, 
then, that division is wrong. Let us not then get alarmed at 
the word "division." Why, we divide our victuals. We do 
not assemble, as they did in Sparta, all together to drink black 



172 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

broth at a common table; but each man sits down at his own 
table, and partakes of his meal. But whilst we are not re- 
quired to sit at one common table and drink black broth to- 
gether, our children are required to sit at one common table, 
and drink the black broth of immorality and crime. It is that 
which I object to. 

Let us see whether this division would not be beneficial; let 
us see how it would operate. In San Francisco they have 
9000 pupils entitled to attend the public schools; about two- 
thirds of these children cannot attend these schools, some for 
one reason and some for another; some because their parents 
believe that to send their children to these public schools would 
be the ruin of them, both for time and eternity; others do not 
send their children there because they do not like the character 
of the teachers, or the character of the books that are employed 
in them; and the consequence is, that only about one-third, or a 
little more than one-third, of the pupils in San Francisco enti- 
tled to attend the public schools, do so. The result of this is, 
that only a little over 3,000 pupils receive the benefit of $188,000, 
and the other two-thirds get no part of the benefit of that 
money. Now, it may be a good thing for that one-third to talk 
about the evils of dividing the school fund, but it reminds me 
very much of the greedy boy, who stands eating an apple, and 
when his brother-bo}', standing by, calls for a division of the 
apple, he says it would be very disastrous to him to divide it, 
and he prefers to take it all, notwithstanding that a part of it 
belongs to another. So, in San Francisco, it may be consid - 
ered a hard thing to take from 3000 children the two-thirds of 
the school fund, which does not belong to them, and transfer it 
to its rightful owners; and it may be hard, but I think it is fair 
and just. Why, suppose all these 9000 children were to go to 
the common schools of that city. "Would not the}'- have to em- 
ploy an additional number of teachers, and build an additional 
number of school-houses? Would they not have to increase 
their expenses in other respects ? So that, after all, this one- 
third of the children would not get the benefit of the entire 
school fund; but then it would be divided amongst the whole 
9000. Now, if it is to be divided, or rather if it ought to be 
divided, what matters it whether we all go to drink out of the 
same dish, or whether it be divided into smaller parcels, to 
suit the tastes, the interests, and the Avishes of those to whom 
it belongs? 



Opening !Speech on School Bill. 173 

Again: Yoii go into the country, you take a school district 
where, say, there are seventy-five chiklren. Now, let us see how 
it would operate there. Your common school is already estab- 
lished; it has its school-house built. Suppose a private indi- 
vidual at the instance of parents starts another school upon his 
own account. Suppose that fifty of the seventy-five children 
leave the public school and attend this free school established 
under this act. Tou may say it will break up the other school. 
Perhaps it will; but if it does not meet with the approbation of 
tliose whose children are to be educated, ought it not be broken 
up? Is it not better that the school should stand which is agree- 
able to fifty pupils and their parents, than that which is agreeable 
to only to twenty-five and their parents. 

Sir, there is but one means by which the proposed system 
can interfere with the present system, and that is by competi- 
tion. Now I believe in competition in all things. But how un- 
equally do these competitors start out in the race ! Why, sir, 
the present common school system starts out with buildings 
already erected of the value of nearly half a million of dollars. 
The common school sets out already fully organized, with offi- 
cers all elected. The public school system sets out far in ad- 
vance; and it is proposed now to do what? Not to break up that 
system by act of law; not to abolish the system by virtue of 
this bill; but to plant another system alongside of the one which 
already exists; to plant a free system, one which places the care 
of the education of children in the hands of parents; to plant 
that alongside of the sturdy oak of the present system of com- 
mon schools. Now I submit this question: If the system pro- 
posed is inferior to the one already established, would it not go 
down in the competition ? Let the common school be maintained, 
if the people like it better. But if they prefer the system which 
it is proposed to establish, if that meets with the more favor in 
the eyes of the public, then a competition is created between 
the free school proposed by this bill and the common school 
now in existence. The former may draw the pupils who now 
attend the latter class of schools, and there is all the fear and 
all the difficulty with regard to this bill. But, let me tell you, 
Ibat if any system cannot stand on its own merits, it ought not 
to stand with the support of the law. 

The subject is one full of importance and interest to us. We 
are now laying the foundations of a government. We are start- 



174 Opening Speech on School Bill. 

iDg out in our career as a })eople, aud it is all important that 
we start right. It is all important that we should come up to 
this work Avith an eje single to the welfare of posterity. I know 
that the howlers of the press will cry "bigot" and " sectarian." 
But I have learned to despise calumny, come from what source 
it may. I have been told that my advocacy of this measure is 
to be my political grave. If that prediction be true, I only 
have to regret that I am not worthy of so honorable a tomb; for 
I believe that the green sod grows not upon the grave of a hero 
who died battling for a nobler cause than that for which I am 
now appealing to you. Sir, Sacramento has acted wisely in time 
gone by. Profiting by experience, she has taken the precaution 
of erecting a levee round her entire limits, for the purpose of 
turning aside the turbid waters as they sweep down from our 
mountain heights and flood our valleys. Let us profit by her 
example. There is a torrent far more turbid and pestilential 
than that which is now flooding our valleys and threatening to 
inundate our capital city.^ It is the torrent of vice, of im- 
morality and crime. Its sources are to be found in Europe, in 
Asia, and America; in the prison walls of London, of Paris and 
of New York. From a hundred thousand streams there is pour- 
ing in upon us a flood of crime and turpitude such as never 
cursed a people since the world began. And if we would act 
wisely, it is high time for us to begin the work of building 
around ourselves, and around our posterity, a moral levee that 
will protect both ourselves and them from the poisonous waters 
of crime and iniquity. 

Sir, in the course of my remarks I have endeavored to con_ 
fine myself to the point at issue. I have endeavored to touch 
the prejudices of no one, and if I have been so unfortunate as 
to have wounded the feelings of any, all I have to say is that I 
ask his pardon. I have been actuated by a sincere desire to 
promote what I regard as the most important cause that ever 
engaged the attention of a deliberative body. 

*At the time this bill was under discussion, the whole Sacramento valley was under water, 
and the city was only protected from inundation by her levees. 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 175 

CHAPTER XXXIir. 

closing speech of Z. MONTGOMERY ON THE SCHOOL BILL, DELIV- 
ERED IN THE ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OP CALIFORNIA, APRIL 

23, 1861. 

Mb. Speaker : Before this bill comes to a vote I desire to 
make some further remarks relative to its merits. In doing so 
I shall endeavor to reply to some objections which have been 
urged to the bill by its opponents. A.ud, sir, I regret to be 
compelled to say that these objections, as they appear to me, 
come supported neither by facts nor arguments, but solely by 
prejudice. 

We are met at every stage of this discussion by the charge 
that this is a Bomau Catholic bill. We are told that the peti- 
tioners asking for the passage of this bill are Boman Catholics. 
I much regret that this discussion has taken this turn; but, sir, 
is it as a matter of fact true that all the signers of the petition 
asking for the passage of this bill are Boman Catholics? I con- 
fess that I have not taken the pains to go through this list of 
some 14,000 names for the purpose of satisfying myself as to 
the particular religious predilections of every man whose signa- 
ture is attached to the petition; for me it is enough to know 
that they are American citizens of the State of California. I 
have never stopped to inquire whether they were Protestants, 
Catholics, Jews, or Mohammedans; but, sir, I have glanced at a 
few of those names, and amongst the few personally known to 
me, I assert as a fact that there are at least as many and as 
prominent names of non-Catholics as of Catholics. I find on 
this petition the names of some distinguished Protestant min- 
isters of the gospel. Among these I may mention that of the 
Eev. Mr. McDonald, of the city of Stockton, an Episcopalian 
clergyman. I am also informed that the name of Bev. Mr. 
Bicks, a prominent Methodist minister of Calaveras county, as 
well as the names of other eminent Protestant ministers, stand 
appended to this petition. But, sir, if these petitioners are 
simply asking for that which is right and reasonable, what mat- 
ters it whether they are Protestants, Catholics, Jews, or non- 
religionists? Why, sir, when I look back to the pages of my 
country's history I learn that the liberties we enjoy were pur- 
chased not alone by Protestant blood, nor Catholic blood, nor 
by the blood of non-believers, but by the blood of freemen of 



176 Closing Speech on School Bill. 

all creeds and of no creed whatever. I find, sir, the name of 
John Hancock, a Protestant, and that of Charles Carroll of 
Carrollton, a Eoman Catholic, appended side by side to the 
Declaration of American Independence; I find that George 
Washington, a Protestant, and Lafayette, a Catholic, fought 
side by side under the same ball-riddled banner for those liber- 
ties which we now enjoy. History tells us that throughout the 
memorable and sublime contest for American Independence, the 
Puritans of Massachusetts, the Episcopalians of Virginia, the 
Huguenots of South Carolina, and the Eoman Catholics of old 
Maryland, side by side and shoulder to shoulder met the battle's 
shock and poured out in one common stream their hearts' 
warmest blood, in order that we, their descendants, might be 
free. Then shame, shame upon us, the degenerate children of 
those noble sires, when we undertake to reproach and stigmatize 
each other because of our differences of religious belief. 

-)t * * Ij^ discussing this question, I propose to deal with it 
on its merits. When a petition comes here asking the passage of 
a bill for the removal of alleged grievances, what is our duty ? 
It is not to inquire \^hether the petitioners are Catholics or 
Protestants, but whether, as American citizens, their prayer is 
entitled to our consideration. Why, sir, if a highwayman at- 
tacks a clergyman whilst traveling on the high road, and robs 
him of his purse, and the clergyman makes a complaint before a 
magistrate, is it the business of the magistrate to inquire whether 
he is a clergyman, or whether he is a Catholic or a Protestant? 
Is it not sufficient that a crime — a wrong — has been committed, 
to warrant an investigation? So it is in the present instance. 
By that rule I propose to treat this subject. I do not care 
whether a single Catholic signed that petition or not. God 
knows I ask nothing on that score. And I want every member 
on this floor to consider the matter in the same light. I want 
this bill treated exactly as if every man who signed that petition 
was a member of another church than the Catholic, or of no 
church at all. No man on this floor asks anything for the bill 
on the ground that the signers of that petition, in whole or in 
part, are Catholics. We ask a fair consideration of the meas- 
ure, treating the petitioners simply as American citizens, 
nothing more, nothing less. 

The business of the legislature is to so shape every law that 
while having an eye to the general good, it will do nothing to 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 177 

conflict with the conscientious convictions of any American 
citizen, whether Protestant or Catholic, Jew or Gentile. It has 
always been the policy of our government, in the shaping of 
its laws, to respect the conscientious convictions of its citizens. 
For example, our law in prescribing the manner in which an 
oath shall be administered, having regard to a particular class 
of religionists, provides that those who do not believe it is right 
to swear by the name of their Maker may affirm. And why? 
It is because an affirmation, while it answers the same purpose 
as an oath, does not offend the conscience of the affiant. Now, 
sh", I assert again that there are many of our citizens, Protest- 
ants as well as Catholics, who will not send their children to 
your public schools, as they are at present constituted. I ask 
you, gentlemen, to look around in your towns and cities, and 
say whether this is not true. I know it is not so bad in the 
country. I know that the rural populations are differently con- 
stituted from the people of the cities; that they are not so much 
accustomed to vice or to being brought into contact with con- 
taminating influences to the same extent as are the inhabitants 
of your large cities. But I do know, as I have said before, 
that many citizens, Catholics, Protestants, and unbelievers, 
cannot, in certain instances, send their children to your schools, 
consistently with their conscientious belief. And why? Be- 
cause they fear contamination. And I appeal again to those 
who have knowledge of the extent of that feeling as it exists in 
the cities of this State, to say whether what I tell you is not 
true. I know it, sir. It is charged that my assertions are too 
severe upon the common schools of this State. Sir, I wish I 
could believe that I had overdrawn the picture. Whence came 
our common school system? It was brought here from the 
Eastern States, and in order to obtain a correct knowledge of 
its merits, let us go back and see how it has worked there. 

I hold in my hand a pamphlet which has been before referred 
to, which contains extracts from the New York Dispatch and the 
New York Tribune, of as late a date as 1858, showing the con- 
duct of some of the schools of that city; and when we learn 
what kind of fruit the original tree produces, we may form some 
idea as to what we have to expect from the scion. I will read 
from an extract taken from the New York Dispatch, published 
in 1858: 

12 



178 Closing Speech on School Bill. 



"Prostitution in the public schools — Oh! that we had gone 
to reside in the backwoods, or been buried among Hottentots, 
ere we had felt constrained to write that startling caption, and 
print what will be found beneath it. If we are to have our 
children instructed under the auspices of the abandoned of 
both sexes; if our very schools are to be converted into in- 
struments of harlotry] if courtesans are to teach the young 
idea how to shoot, we had better adopt the creed and practices 
of Mormons at once. We were anxious to disregard it; we 
have tried to throw it overboard; we have endeavored to force 
a disbelief of its contents; we have made every effort to con- 
vince ourselves that such a horrible state of affairs cannot pos- 
sibly exist; but all these endeavors have resulted in a convic- 
tion that it is our duty to bring the matter before the public. 
In short, the character of the source from whence the informa- 
tion comes, leaves no room for a doubt as to the sincerity and 
intergity of the writer." 

A portion of the communication to the Dispatch is given as 
follows : 

"it appears that the object of some who seek an election to 
the school board is not only to raise the wind, whereby they 
may live in splendor and fare sumptuously the remaining years 
of their lives, after they had become politically defunct, but 
also a desire to satisfy their carnal appetites at the expense of 
the honor of some of the weak-minded engaged in teaching the 
female youth of the city. 

" Does the public doubt that a school commissioner or trustee 
can succeed in obtaining a mistress from among the many female 
teachers employed? If so, doubt no longer, because, unfor- 
tunately for truth and virtue, and for the frail victims of their 
lust, they are too often successful. And for what consideration 
do these deluded creatures become the willing sacrifice to a 
scoundrel's beastliness? Ambition! Aye, elevation from the 
position of a virtuous subordinate to that of a crime-steeped 
principal. In the ward in which I reside there exists at this 
time an exemplification of the truth of my assertions, and the 
fact is notorious that the commissioner who holds a prominent 
position in one of the most important committees of the board, 
required all who made application to be appointed teachers, to 
submit themselves, not to an examination as to the capability of 
the applicant, but to a personal inspection by his fair inamorata! 
If the applicant's personal appearance pleased this queen, she 
received an appointment; if not, the applicant was told that her 
examination had not proved satisfactory and she could not be 
appointed. 

"The remedies that have been resorted to periodically, to 
rid ourselves of present and to prevent future grievances, have 
proved abortive." 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 179 

On which the editor of the Dispatch comments, as follows: 

" What answer can be made to this charge, or rather, these 
charges? The purity of our children is too sacred a trust to 
be trifled with in the miuvitest particular; we could pass in 
silence the many short comings, not only of our present system 
of city school education, but of the manner in which it is ad- 
ministered. We could, perhaps, forgive the aggregate ineffici- 
encies of many of the commissioners and trustees, and submit 
in silence to the inutilities which are apparent from their in- 
competencies and rapacities, but we cannot .submit for one 
moment to even a bare susi)icion that the children, for whose 
education the inhabitants of Manhattan Island are taxed over 
$1,000,000 per annum, are contaminated by the touch of lewd 
and lascivious preceptors, supposed to be virtuous, or glared at 
with libidinous eyes by lechers in educational office." 

Sir, there is a picture of the common schools of New York, 
drawn by the New York Dispatch, upon what it says is unques- 
tionable authority. 

The New York Tribune vouches for its correctness, and goes 
into details to prove the general conclusions drawn. Sir, is it 
not a fact that we have imported almost every other crime from 
the Eastern States? And is it a fact that in this particular we 
are entirely clear? Is it a fact that whilst we have imported the 
convicts, murderers, forgers, and burglars of New York and 
her sister states, we have, under the same school system, none 
of their lecherous villiaus in our common schools ? If so, all 
I have to say is that we are peculiarly fortunate. * * * 

And how is it sought to clear awaj' the charges which are pre- 
ferred against our public schools? Why, I read the other day 
in the communication of a correspondent, Avritiug from San Fran- 
cisco, a long article on this subject, in which he proposed to 
establish the purity of their schools by having the legislature 
go down — all except my humble self — and inspect those schools 
and see for themselves whether they- are immoral or not. Now, 
sir, is it very probable that if the legislature were to adjourn 
and go down to San Francisco in a body for that purpose, those 
schools would prepare themselves to make an exhibition of the 
immoralities which have been charged upon them? 

There is another mode of proof suggested. I find in the Bul- 
letin of the other day an article to which the author subscribes 
himself "A Catholic," and he proves the purity of the San 
Francisco schools by stating as a fact that one of the schools is 



180 Closing Speech on School Bill. 

kept in the basement of a Eoman Catholic Church, and, there- 
fore he thinks they are all right. And the writer says he is ' 'A 
Catholic!" And he seems to pity me because I do not take lib- 
eral and comprehensive views of matters like himself. 

Whilst some have combatted these charges, others have par- 
tially admitted their correctness. But it is contended that the 
remedy is to be found in the system itself, and they say we must 
not think evil of the system. Now, sir, it is upon that ground 
that I propose to meet this question, and I say that the remedy 
cannot be found in the system, because the evil is in the system 
itself. Why, sir, look at New York and Massachusetts; look 
wherever common schools are conducted upon the same system 
as ours are. 

Is crime growing any less? Go to your eastern penitentiaries 
and tell me if they are not more crowded to-day than they ever 
have been before! Go to your eastern cities, and tell me if 
there is not more prostitution, more fraud, more robbery, more 
forgery, more murders, more bribery and more corruption in 
high places, than ever existed since our Government began. 

Reflect on these things. I tell you there is not a crime which 
has not infested our Government, polluted our sanctuaries of 
justice, and contaminated our legislative and" executive bodies, 
until the Government seems upon the verge of anarchy and 
Tuin. 

Sir, I say that the remedy is not to be found in the system 
itself, as it now is. Here in California, as in New York, the 
dominent political party elects school trustees. 

I do not care whether they are Republicans, Democrats or 
Know-Nothings. Whichever party is predominant, elects the 
school officers. How is it in New York under this system? 
W' hy, from the article, a portion of which I read, it will be 
seen, that in order to reward them for their political services, 
dilapidated and ruined politicians are given places in connec- 
ton with the schools. It may be a school commissionership, 
or a teachership — the old politicians must be rewarded. There 
is no one so degraded in the scale of humanity, but must be 
paid back for his distinguished political services in time of elec- 
tion. And thus it is that our schools have been going down 
and down, till they now seem to be under the rule of the priuco 
of darkness himself. 

It is contended that the system proposed by this bill will 
introduce sectarianism. 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 181 

Have we not sectarianism now, under the present system? 
Have we not both sectarian and partisan political books in use 
in our schools now? 

As has been suggested, the dominant party, whether in religion 
or politics, in any community, will control the election of school 
trustees, and those trustees will control the appointment of 
teachers. Is not that so? Those trustees hold their offices 
from the dominant party; the teacher holds his place directly 
from those trustees, and, therefore, indirectly from the domi- 
nant party. 

Whatever the dominant party requires the teacher to do, he 
is interested in doing. If the dominant party requires him to 
teach atheism, he will do so; and why? Because it is his inter- 
est to teach atheism. I have learned. Sir, to distrust human 
nature when its duty runs counter to its interest. We have 
been told that we must prevent improper teaching in the public 
schools, by legislating good books in, and bad books out of the 
schools. But what matters it what kind of books you put in 
the schools, unless you place them in the hands of proper teach- 
ers? Why, suppose you place the Bible in the public schools, 
to be taught by an atheistical teacher who depends upon an 
atheistical board of education for his position, and consequently, 
for the very bread that he eats. Will not such a teacher, under 
such auspices, teach his pupils to despise and revile the sacred 
book? But if, on the other hand, you take, the Koran for a 
text book, and have a Christian teacher, holding his office from 
a Christian board of trustees, you would have little to fear. 
So, likewise, if j-ou put into the schools the Dred Scott decis- 
ion, and have a Republican teacher, he will teach the children 
to contemn that decision. But if you put there the speeches 
and doctrines of William H. Seward, and have a sound Demo- 
crat for a teacher, you need not fear the influence of those doc- 
trines. If you have a public school teacher who really desires 
to imbue the minds of your children with his own political 
religious or irreligious sentiments, he can and will do it. Under 
our present system there is no security for minorities. I cav(>. 
not whether the rights of such minorities are of a religious, 
political or social character; and why? Because minorities ecu i , 
not control in the matter of selecting the teachers who are (o 
educate their own children. But how different would it be in a 
school organized in accordance with the provisions of this bill. 



182 Closing Speech on School Bill. 

Then, instead of tlie interest of the teacher coming in conflict 
with his duty, his interest would — as suggested in my opening 
remarks — become a constant prompter to duty, since the amount 
to be drawn by the school from the public treasury, would be 
in proportion to the number of scholars attending such school. 
Let the teacher even be a Mormon, if you please; such Mormon 
would not stand in the way of his own interest. And what is 
his own interest ? Why, to have the largest school he can get. 
If such Mormon teacher attempts, while teaching my children, 
to imbue their minds with Mormon doctrines, I will instantly 
withdraw those children from school, and thereby lessen his 
pay. 

His own interest will therefore prevent his attempting any- 
thing of Ae kind. Why, even in private schools uuder the ex- 
clusive control of religionists, we seldom hear any complaint 
about sectarian teaching. And why? Because the teaching of 
sectarian doctrines against the parents' will, is to drive the pupil 
from school. 

Sir, this petition, which comes here numerously signed sets 
forth the fact that the parents of many children in this land, 
cannot conscientiously send them to the schools as now con- 
ducted. Do you believe them, or do you not? If you do not 
believe them, what right have you to disbelieve what they tell 
you? Besides these petitioners, there are hundreds and thou- 
sands of men whom you will meet throughout this State, who 
will tell you they cannot patronize the schools in jour cities and 
towns, as they are at present conducted. Not because they 
claim that their children are by nature any better than others — 
but they mean to say this: that they have not the same confi- 
dence in the public schools that some others have. 

If any think that system a good one, let them patronize it. 
If others think it is a bad one, w^hy compel them to patronize 
it? Sir, I was astonished to hear a gentleman who advocated 
the other side of this proposition, say, that whenever we get our 
common school system fully organized, and have free schools 
all over the land, he would be in favor of compelling parents to 
send their children to school. What? Compel parents to send 
their children to school, and not allow them any choice in de- 
termining Avhat that" school shall be? 

Mr. CoNXESS. I dislike to interrupt the gentleman when he 
is speaking, bul: he must not misrepresent me. I distinctly 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 183 

stated, that, when the schools were iu a condition to impart a 
correct education to children, I would then vote for a law to 
make it obligatory on parents to send their children to some 
school. That was what I stated, sir. The parent might choose 
whether the children should attend a public or private school. 

Mr. Montgomery. I would inquire of the gentleman, what he 
would do in case a parent was not able to send his children to 
a private school, and his conscientious convictions would not 
allow him to send them to a public school? 

Mr. CoNNESS. I think that "conscientious convictions," to 
use a very vulgar phrase, ought to be "played out." Such 
cases I consider to be perfect and complete humbug. 

Mr. Montgomery. I am aware there is a class of men in the 
world who believe conscientious convictions are "played out." 
For myself, I believe whenever they are "played out" the 
human race will be played out also. 

Mr. CoNNESS. I will say, sir, that I have the highest respect, 
under all circumstances, for the conscientious convictions of 
my fellow men. But, if a man says he has a conscientious 
conviction upon a certain thing with which conscience has no 
connection, I have my own opinion of what that man means. 
I am of the opinion, to come directly to the point, that when 
there are good public schools, free and open to all, in which no 
sectarian doctrine is taught, and where all the common branches 
'of education are taught in the best possible manner, he who 
has conscientious convictions against sending his children, 
while he is iinable to send them anywhere else, ought to have a 
guardian appointed by law for his offspring. 

Mr. Montgomery. Will the gentleman allow me to ask him 
a question in this connection ? 

Mr. Conness. Certainly. 

Mr. Montgomery. I would inquire, then, who is to be the 
judge as to whether a school is suitable to the conscientious 
convictions of a parent, or not? 

Mr. Conness. I reply to that by saying that in every country 
on earth there are parents in multitudes who are not competent 
to judge as to whether a school is fit or unfit for their children; 
for the reason that they never had any education themselves, 
and consequently know nothing about the matter. 

Mr. Montgomery. That does not answer my question. I 
asked the question, who was to be the judge of the parents' 
conscience? 



184 Closing Speech on School Bill. 

Mr. CoNNESS. I, as a public servant, would be a judge in 
some cases. I would — as we did in providing a State reform 
scliool for children who are without the direction of parents, 
or have parents who are not fit to have charge of them — 
establish a public receptacle where such children could be 
trained and educated by the public agents. I would have pro- 
vided for yet another class of children, whose only crime is 
being poor — a crime most of us are guilty of, by the way — the 
very highest order of schools; I would invite parents to send 
their children there; and would compel them to send them 
either there or elsewhere. I would make it obligatory as the 
fiat of Heaven, that every child should have some class of edu- 
cation. 

Mr. Montgomery. I had thought, sir, that the days of re- 
ligious persecution had gone by. I had thought that there had 
been enough blood spilt to satisfy the cravings of the god of 
religious bigotry and intolerance. I had thought there had 
been sufficient lessons taught in the countries, both of Europe 
and America, upon the subject of coercing the consciences of 
men. But it seems that I was laboring under a pleasing de- 
lusion. Sir, let the government proceed (as at present) by 
mere force of a numerical majority to establish a system of 
common schools over which the minority have no control, and 
then let the** government attempt to compel by adequate pen- 
alties, an unwilling minority in violation of their conscientious 
convictions to patronize those schools, and I tell you that a 
fruitless persecution would be the only result. Why, sir. do 
you suppose that the mother who prizes the chastity of her 
daughter would for the fear even of death send that daughter 
to such schools as those referred to in the city of New York ? 
There is a sentiment in the breast of every human being, be he 
white or black, who values the chastity of his daughter, which 
will bid him brave the rack, the gibbet, or the stake, rather 
than place that chastity in the path of danger. I tell you, 
gentlemen, I tell the State, I tell the world, that, for myself, 
no law exists, nor can there ever be a law enacted which can 
compel me to send my child into what 1 regard as a school of 
vice and iniquity, merely because the law by a kind of legal 
fiction pronounces it good. 

Sir, they talk about a union of church and State. Tell me 
how you can more efi'ectually and disastrously unite church 



Closing Speech on School Bill. 185 

and State than by allowing the government to determine what 
is proper for the conscientious approval or disapproval of its 
citizens in the matter of educating their children. Why, sir, 
did Nero exercise any greater tyranny and intolerance than this, 
at the time he deluged Rome with Christian blood? He also 
said that conscientious convictions were all a humbug. Did 
the persecutor Julian, who made rich the soil of his empire 
with the blood of its best citizens, do more than decide that 
the State had a right to determine when the conscientious con- 
victions of its citizens were right, and when they were wrong? 
Why, sir, upon this theory the Presbyterian conscience might 
rule the land to-day; to-morrow it might be the Roman Catholic 
conscience; the next day it might be the Methodist, and so on 
without limit. I repudiate any doctrine which asserts that the 
State has a right to control the consciences of its citizens. Im- 
pose any other burden you please upon the parent of the child. 
Bid the mother pluck her infant babe from her breast, and cast 
it screaming into a lion's den, and perhaps she may heed the 
order. But never, never say to that mother that she must hazard 
the virtue of her child by placing it under the tuition of one 
whom she even suspects of immorality, for I tell you, if she be 
a true mother, she will never obey your command. 

How beautifully, sir, does the plan of education proposed by 
this bill accord with the system of republican government, and 
of religious and political liberty? It proposes, as we have 
seen, that any number of citizens who have a sufficient number 
of children, may form their own school. They may have their 
own teacher. They must conform to the law, so far as the 
teaching of the school is concerned, and when they have done 
so, they shall be entitled to draw their pro rata. Thus you 
make the parents willing to patronize the schools. They pay 
their school tax with a good will. Why? Because they are 
convinced that it will be expended in a manner beneficial to 
their children. Now, suppose there are 20,000 or 25,000 citi- 
zens in this State who are opposed to the present school system, 
and I doubt not there are more than that number — men, 
too, of all creeds, and of no creed at all; and suppose it is nec- 
essary to vote a tax to support the schools under this system, 
do you expect those 20,000 or 25,000 citizens to vote in favor 
of such a tax? Can you expect a people to tax themselves 
against their will? On the contrary, when there is as now a 



186 Closing Speech on School Bill. 

large body of people in our midst who are utterly opposed to the 
school system, will they not vote against the tax every time? 
How can you help it? Tell me, how are you going to compel 
them to vote for this tax? How much better, then, would it 
be to adopt some plan which would render the people satisfied 
with their school system, and by which every man could feel 
that he had a personal interest in the matter. 

By the establishment of free public schools upon the plan 
proposed in this bill, you would likewise improve the character 
of the common schools as now established. Plant the two sys- 
tems side by side, and what do you do ? Why, sir, you create 
a competition between these rival systems. The free schools 
now proposed to be established, would draw off a part of the 
children and patronage of the present schools, and thereby 
stimulate the friends of the present schools to energetic efforts, 
in order to regain their lost pupils, and retain those that are 
left. Why, sir, be afraid of the proposed system? It is a 
voluntary system. It is forced on nobody. There is not a citi- 
zen in the State who will be compelled to adopt it, and when 
adopted by others, no man will be forced to send his children 
to its schools if he prefers the present system. Gentlemen say 
there are only a few in the State who desire it. What of it, if 
it be true ? If only a few desire it, then only a few will adopt 
it. Why distrust the people? Are they capable of self-gov- 
ernment, and yet incapable of selecting schools for their chil- 
dren? If, as is sometimes alleged, only a small number of 
citizens desire this change, then the injury to the present sys- 
tem, which is so much dreaded, can be but trifling. But, if on 
the other hand, it be contended that a considerable portion of 
our citizens would adopt the proposed system, is not this an ad- 
mission that the present plan of education is distasteful to a 
large portion of our people? It is simply impossible, sir, that 
the proposed system can succeed unless it is popular. * * -st 
But it is said that by compelling the children all to attend the 
same schools, you create a spirit of sociability and fraternal 
feeling among our people. Why, sir, we have heard of govern- 
ments where they have established churches, and where all the 
people are required to attend the same service, but does this 
beget brotherly love among the people ? Does it not, on the 
contrary, beget strife, bloodshed, and civil war? Whenever 
you attempt to compel men to come up to one standard of 



Closing Speech on School Bill, 187 

morals, or religion, you will, to a certainty, engender strife and 
bitterness. Is not that so? Can it be gainsaid? What is 
true of churches, is equally true of schools. I tell you that 
parents who have not confidence in the moral tone of your 
schools will never patronize them. You may enact your penal 
statutes; you may fine and imprison; but you will never com- 
pel parents to patronize your schools against the dictates of 
their own consciences. It is not by driving the people, by 
force of law, all to the same sanctuary, but by allowing them 
to choose, each for himself, what church he will attend, that 
you create harmony and sociability. One man goes to the 
Methodist Church South; another to the Methodist Church 
North; another to the Presbyterian church; another to the 
Baptist church; another to the Catholic church. They each 
attend to the services of their respective churches, and then 
come out and meet in good fellowship. But undertake to drive 
them all into one church, and then comes trouble. It is free- 
dom, liberty and equality that create sociability and good feel- 
ing among the people. You attend your church, and I will 
attend mine. You patronize the school you like, and I will 
patronize just such school as I like; and we will get along har- 
moniously together. We are, each and all, amenable to God, 
and not to the State, for the good or bad choice which we 
make, whether it be in the matter of church or school. 



188 Short Aj)deess to Children. 

CHAPTEE XXXiy. 

SHORT ADDRESS TO CHILDREN — HONOR THY FATHER AND THY 

MOTHER. 

Have you ever reflected' seriously, youthful reader, upon this 
injunction: " Honor thy father and thy mother?" An injunc- 
tion most emphatically dictated as well by the voice of reason 
as of revelation. Consider, for one moment, how justly your 
father and your mother are entitled to this honor. It is to 
them, under Providence, that you owe your birth, your very 
existence; and, after birth, who can say what would have been 
your fate, but for their protecting care; how many sleepless 
nights have they passed, how many anxious thoughts have they 
experienced on your account; who but they first taught your 
childish feet to walk, and trained your unpracticed tongue to 
lisp in broken accents the first emotions of your infant mind; 
who but they first pointed you to the charming beauties of sur- 
rounding nature, and told you of that God, that Heaven, and 
that eternity which await you beyond the grave? Does not every 
morsel of food that you eat, and every article of apparel that 
you put on, proclaim in unmistakable accents, 'honor thy 
father and thy mother ?" How often have they endured fatigue 
and hunger and heat and cold and wind and rain, in order that 
you might be fed, clothed and sheltered from the inclemency of 
the seasons? nor will their solicitude for your welfare ever 
cease, but with life itself. 

As the setting sun gilds with his last declining rays the tops of 
of our tallest mountain piues — his favorite forest children — while 
at the same time he ascends, robed in all the splendor of the morn- 
ing, to greet the mighty ocean of western waters that roll be- 
yond, so, when the parent shall pass from time to eternity, his 
last expiring thoughts will rest upon his children, while the 
spirit, clothed in the habiliments of immortality, will rise like 
a new-made orb to meet its God, and to shine forever amid the 
boundless realms of everlasting bliss. Even from its celestial 
home will that parent's spirit whisper back the words: " Honor 
thy father and thy mother."'^ 

^Occidental, October 29, 1864. 



NOTE BY THE AUTHOR. 



Since completing this volume, the writer has come into pos- 
session of a book published by a California author, intended for, 
and now being introduced into, our public schools as a class- 
book, entitled "Manual of American Ideas." We cannot notice 
all of these remarkable "American Ideas;" but must not omit 
to mention one. The author undertakes to justify our present 
State system of education, chiefly on the ground, that it is 
cheaper for the State to prevent crime by the education of chil- 
dren, than to defray the cost of the judges, juries, jails, police- 
men, prosecuting attorneys and penitentiaries, which are nec- 
essary for the arrest, trial and punishment of criminals. Now 
if, as shown by our published tables, the six New England States 
after a 200 years trial of the State system of education had one 
native white criminal to every 1084 native white inhabitants, 
while six of their sister States, after a similar trial of the par- 
ental system, had but one criminal to every 6670, we would in- 
quire how much money New England saved during those 200 
years in the cost of judges, juries, jails, etc., by reason of her 
State education. 

Will the learned author of "Manual of American Ideas" 
answer? 



Il^DORSEMEl^TS 



DISTINGUISHED CATHOLICS, PIIOTESTANTS, AND 
NON-RELIGIONISTS. 



This Avork being designed as a short series of philosopliical 
and statistical essays on the School question, written exclusively 
from a parental standpoint, no special ecclesiastical approval 
has been thought necessary; and yet the following testimonials 
abundantly show that the work is not considered irreligious iu 
tone by those well qualified to judge in such matters. The 
author's object has been to touch a responsive chord in the 
heart of every intelligent reader, be he Catholic, Protestant, 
Jew or non-religionist; and the following high and equally cordial 
indorsements coming from distinguished divines of different 
religious denominations, and eminent scholars and scientists, oi 
no particular religious persuasion, indicate a most gratifying 
realization of this, his leading idea. Below will be found : First. 
Some indorsements from eminent Catholic sources; and. Second, 
a number of Protestant and secular opinions not less commend- 
atory : 

The Et. Eev. Eugene O'Connell, Bishop of Grass Valley, 
writing to the author from Marysville, under date of March 15, 
1878, says : 

"My Dear Mk. Montgomesy: On this memorable day — the 
Ides of March — I have revised your admirable book entitled 
Poison Fountain. I only wish that every American citizen 
interested for the welfare of his country, and all parents whom 
God has blessed with children, would read it attentively. Your 
arguments iu behalf of the rights of parents to control the edu- 
cation of their children, are, iu my opinion, unanswerable." 



192 Testimonials. 

The following indicates the views of the Kight Rev. Bishop 
Blanchet, of Vancouver, concerning the Poison Fountain: 

" Bishop's Hotjse, Vancouvee, W. T. ) 
April 8, 1878. f 

"Zach. Montgomery, Esq., Oakland, Cal. 

" Dear Sir: The Et. Eev. Bishop Blanchet directs me to thaok- 
fullj acknowledge the reception of your more than timely work 
entitled 'The Poison Fountain,' and to state after a careful 
perusal of its contents, he does not hesitate in saying that the 
sound arguments that pervade the book throughout, and the 
official statistics that grace its pages are incontrovertible. In- 
deed, if every tree is known by its fruit, the system of public 
schools in this country is evidently defective, and fraught with 
great dangers to the morals of the rising generation. Hoping 
that your praiseworthy efforts in so good a cause may meet with 
all the success they so richly deserve, 

"I remain, yours most respectfully, 

"J. B. Boulet, Bishop's Secretary." 

The following is a part of the very cordial indorsement given 
to the "Poison Fountain," by Eev. Edmund J. Young, S. J., in 
a letter addressed to the author, dated at Santa Clara College, 
March 19, 1878: 

"Dear Zach.: Tour little book was put into my hands on 
last Saturday, the eve of St. Patrick's Day, and it has been de- 
voured. It was a rich treat. I opened it at random. It chanced 
to be page 58. I was so interested that I had to keep right on, 
so that I read the last part first and the first part last. I became 
so absorbed, that although I had to preach the panegyric of 
Ireland's patron saint on the next day in San Jos^, I forgot all 
about St. Patrick, and that God is good to the Irish, and read 
on into the 'dead waste and middle of the night.' Your style is 
excellent. It is nervous, racy — incisive. It is better than 
Junius's letters. It is equal to that of Dr. Marshal or the lamented 
Brown son." 

Eev. M. Wallrath, Editor of The CaihoUc Parents' Friend, 
writing to the author from Colusa, of date March 6, 1878, says : 

"I congratulate you most heartily on the issue of your ex- 
cellent work on education. May God reward you richly with 
all blessings. The book will do immense good, without doubt. 
Et will put high minds to pondering seriously, and the leaders 



Testimonials. 193 

of public opinion once being turned, the public itself and gov- 
ernment must follow. If envy were allowed, T would euvj- — 
almost — your striking term "anti-parental." It alone weighs 
your whole book in gold. It hits the monster in its most vul- 
nerable, I may say, its only vulnerable place. I shall do all in 
my power to gain readers of your work." 

Key. Beother Justin, President of St. Mary's College, San 
Francisco, on Marcli 30, 1878, wrote as follows: 

"Hon. Z. MoNTGi^MERY — My Dear Sir: A thousand thanks 
for your excellent and invaluable book. I would have thanked 
you sooner, but was anxious not only to read, but to study it. 
I have read it and am studying it. I feel that no parent who 
reads it dispassionately can help coming to the conclusion that 
the great work of the day for the well-being of children is their 
proper education. If parents only knew the terribly destructive 
evils that flow, and must flow from a system of education from 
which both religion and parental influence are eliminated, they 
would at once apply the remedy. 

"The man, sir, who has the moral courage to place the truth 
before their eyes, is indeed a hero. God alone is able to re- 
ward you for your noble efforts in the cause of religion and 
society." 

Ex-GovEENOR Peter H. Burnett, of California, the author of 
" The Path which Led a Protestant Lawj'er into the Catholic 
Church," thus indorses the "Poison Fountain:" 

"San Fkancisco, March 22, 1878. 

"Z. Montgomery, Esq. — My Dear Sir: I received the copy of 
your work, and have carefully read the first part and a portion 
of part second, and I can truly say it meets my most unquali- 
fied approbation. It is one of the most conclusive arguments 
I have ever read upon any disputed subject." 

The Neio York Freeman'' s Journal of June 1, 1878, thus notices 
"The Poison Fountain:" 

"A few weeks ago we published an extract from a volume of 
the Hon. Zach. Montgomery, of the California bar, on 'Anti- 
parental Education as the Poison Fountain ' of modern society. 
It was a very startling passage. We wish Mr. Montgomery, 
whose political record is so good, would republish the first part 
of his essay in some house in the east, so as to get a wider cir- 



194 Testimonials. 

culation. Zacli. Montgomery is a deep thinker, and a brave, 
bold talker. He lias presented liis subject admirably. It Las 
been stated long ago, and our Holy Father Pope Leo XIII, has 
anew said the self-same truths. But Zach. Montgomery has 
spoken these truths in his own way with great force and precis- 
ioii; and with the evident conscience of a man who has been 
willing to suffer for his convictions." 



PE0TE8TANT AND 8ECULAE IND0E8EMENTS. 

The following letters and press notices indorsing "The 
Poison Fountain," are from either Protestant or Secular sources 
— all of California: 

Rev. W. H. Platt, a talented and leading Episcopalian min- 
ister of San Francisco, wrote: 

"March 23, 1878. 

"Hon. Z. Montgomery — My Dear Sir: First, let me thank 
you for the compliment of sending me your book; and secondly 
and deeply for the book itself. Its array of facts and its irre- 
fragible logic, cannot fail to do good." 

Mr. A. Adams, an intelligent Protestant gentleman, writing 
from Savannah, Los Angeles county, April 1, 1878, among other 
things, says: 

"To say that I was pleased with 'Poison Fountain,' would 
not express the degree of satisfaction I felt. I am struck 
with the similarity of our views on the school question, and bid 
you God-speed in propagating your views as contained in the 
publication before me. I see that you, a Catholic, and I, a 
Protestant, are united here." 

Hon. De. T. W. Dawson, formerly of Shasta City, now of 
Downey City, Los Angeles County, Cal., a clear headed thinker, 
but a non-religionist, under date of May 26, 1878, says: 

' ' My much esteemed friend : I have delayed the acknowledge- 
ment of my thanks for your kindness in sending me a copy of 
your master production and arguments on our Public School 
system. On speaking of this subject of our Public Schools, I 
find that there are many j)ei"sons in this section who are in 
harmony with you in sentiment on the subject, and when they 



Testimonials. 195 

shall have bad access to your array of facts and arguments will 
certainly become aroused to a proper sense of the importance 
of the subject; for I honestly believe that your array of facts 
and reasoning are simply unanswerable." 

The Oakland Press, a secular paper, in its issue of February 
16, 1878, had the following: 

"Poison Fountain or Anti-Pakental Education,"' is the 
title of a book jast published by one of Oakland's most distin- 
guished lawyers, Hon. Zach. Montgomer}-. It is an essay and 
discussion upoji the school question, from a parental and non- 
sectarian standpoint, wherein the decline of parental authority, 
the downfall of family government, and the terrible growth ol 
crime, pauperism, insanity and suicides in America are traced 
directly and unmistakably to our anti-parental Public School 
system. Every family should have this work as much as a 
Bible. 

The Colusa Sun of March 2, 1878, speaking of the "Poison 
Fountain," says: 

"It is a powerful plea in favor of parental education as op- 
posed to State education. It shows that there are six criminals 
in the States, where State education was the rule, to one in the 
States where parental education was the rule. Whatever Mr. 
Montgomery says is said with force and without circuralocn- 
tion, and no parent could spend money or time better than in 
purchasing the book, and reading it. The subject is one of 
vast importance, and parents should at least inquire into it." 

The Oakland Mirror of March 16, 1878, speaks thus of the 
' ' Poison Fountain : " 

"The author and genial gentlemen, a prominent member of 
the California bar, and old-time resident of Oakland, needs 
no introduction to the readers of the 31irror. We did not 
begin this notice with a view of making a criticism, but 
rather to note the fact that all the critics of the great metro- 
politan journals have thus far conspicuously refrained from 
pointing out the fallacies (if there be any) in the arguments 
which Zach. Montgomery has used in the construction of the 
Poison Fountain. Some of them have ventured to say ' Tain't 
so,' and that is as far as any of them have gone. The book has 
created something of a sensation in our city — the Athens of the 



196 Testimonials, 

Pacific coast and while a great majority of our people stand 
back agbast, and hold up their hands in holy horror at the 
idea of a man attacking the Public School system, the very 
well known honesty and straightforwardness of our fellow-citi- 
zen, the author, causes some of the dazed to exclaim : ' Can it 
be possible that Zach. is right?' and that if the wonderfully 
interesting book of figures is hallucinatory, why do not-some of 
the papers show it up? And so says the Blirror. The PoiSON 
Fountain is finding such ready sale throughout Oakland, we 
think it is a duty these papers owe to their readers, to point out 
the poison in the book in question, if it has poison in it." 

The Pacific, the oldest and leading Congregational paper on 
this coast, after quoting entire the title page of the Poison 
Fountain, in its issue of March 7, 1878, says : 

"We give the title of this book in full. The subject is im- 
portant and seems to be handled with ability. As we have 
been able to give it only a cursory examination, v/e cannot pass 
judgment upon every statement; but we are sure that every 
intelligent citizen will find in it matter worthy of liis earnest 
attention." 

The Amador Dispatch, one of the longest standing and most 
influential secular papers in the interior of California, in its 
issue of April 6, 1878, has the following: 

"OUE SCHOOL SYSTEM ATTACKED. 

" We have just received from Mr. Z. Montgomery, of Oakland, 
a book published by that gentleman, entitled 'The Poison 
Fountain; oe Anti-Paeental Education,' which is an open 
attack upon our system of public education. We have not had 
time to give the book that careful consideration which its im- 
portance demands; but from the cursory view we have taken of 
it, we believe that it should be fairly read by every parent in the 
countiy. It is to be expected that many are so wedded to our 
established school system, that they will often harshly and igno- 
. rantly condemn any and everything that does not praise and 
uphold that system. But such persons should remember that 
no matter how popular a wrong may be, or how long it may 
have existed, it is no less a vice. In fact, the more popular a 
vice becomes, the greater its power to do wrong. We all agree 
that a people properly educated are more moral, virtuous, eon- 



Testimonials. 197 

tented, liappy and law-abiding than the ignorant; but when they 
are improperly educated they are the more ignorant and vicious. 
It is easier to overcome simple ignorance than it is to banish 
false ideas to which we have been educated. We are satisfied 
that our school system is far from perfect, and when we con- 
sider the vast sums of money expended for the education of our 
children, and the responsibility of that education, it behooves 
us to inquire wdiether such money is properly expended or not. 
Mr. Montgomery produces apparently conclusive figures to show- 
that our New England system of education is a grave evil. He 
shows that those thus educated furnish 6 criminals to 1 where 
Public Schools do not exist; the proportion of pavipers, 2 to 1; 
of iusane, 2 to 1; suicides, 4 to 1, and so on. If these serious 
facts are the results of the Public Schools, then let their power 
be checked. This whole matter is ably discussed in the publi- 
cation referred to." 

The San Rafael liendd of April 6, 1878, after giving the title 
of the book says : 

"The work is a masterly review of our school system, ex- 
posing its defects, and suggesting remedies. It is replete with 
interesting essays and discussions from a parental and non- 
sectarian standpoint. Every parent in the land should read it." 

The Tnickee RepiMican of April 3, 1878, in noticing the 
"Poison Fountain," says: 

"It is devoted to essays and discussions on the school ques- 
tion from a non-sectarian standpoint, and will undoubtedly be 
very acceptable in many homes." 

The Watsoiiville Transcript of April 5, 1878, says: 
"The author of the Poison Fountain takes the ground that 
tlie school system which prescribes certain studies and certain 
teachers for children, and makes it a crime to refuse to send 
children to such schools, i£j very pernicious, and increases 
crime. It is an ably written w^ork, and we advise all interested 
in our Public Schools to get and read it." 

The Sa.ji. Joaqttiii Valley Argns of April 13, 1878, supplements 
a quotation from the PoisoN Fountain, with the following: 

"The above is a neatly bound volume of one hundred and 
eighty-eight pages from the pen of the talented Zach. Mont- 



198 Testimonials. 

gomery of the California bar. This little book contains some 
verj strong arguments against the Public School system, and 
the author gives figures in proof of what he asserts. And we do 
fearlessly say, and faithfully believe, that every intelligent per- 
son who Avill give this ably prepared work a thorough perusal, 
and the figures their careful attention, cannot but be convinced 
of the rottenness of the present Public School system, and that 
this system is kept alive only through the vile trickery of 
political wire-workers, and the ignorance or lack of investiga- 
tion on the part of parents. We hope that our readers will 
send for the work, and read it carefally, and with an unpreju- 
diced understanding." 

The Crescent City Courier of April 10, 1878, after quoting 
from the "Poison Fountain," says: "It is an interesting and 
instructing volume, and contains many a good lesson for 
parents . " 



QUALIFIED INDOESEMENTS. 

The following are specimens of partial indorsements of, and 
partial objections to, the "Poison Fountain," by gentlemen of 
acknowledged ability, who are not yet prepared to go quite so 
far in their opposition to certain features of the Public School 
system as does the author: 

The Solano Herald oi April 11, 1878, speaking of the "Poi- 
son Fountain," among other things, says; 

"The author of the book, Zach. Montgomery, is well known to 
many of our readers as a prominent member of the California bar, 
and a forcible writer. Everybody wdio is at all familiar with the 
character and ability of the author of this little work, will be 
prepared to receive it as a valuable acquisition to the library. In 
the body of the book he gives strong reasons why the parental 
system of education should be encouraged, and gives many rea- 
sons to prove the evil tendency of the Public School system. 
There are many things discussed by the author in which we en- 
tirely agree, but he is rather radical upon other propositions; 
still, we don't know but that we might accept his radical views if 
it were not for the fact that we would rather remain under a cloud 
than fly to ills we know not of. Nevertheless, the book deserves 
a wide sale, for no one can read it without receiving new ideas, and 



Testimonials. 1;99 

most important ideas, too, in tlie government and training of 
children. You must not expect it to be a delicate, polite ufftiir, 
for the author has the reputation of handling things without 
gloves, and he not only handled his subject in this book with- 
out gloves, but he got his hands calloused with sand-paper 
before he started in." 

The Inyo Independent of April 6, 1878, concludes a notice of 
the Poison Fountain, as follows : 

"The work is one that touches upon a subject in which we 
feel a very deep interest; it attacks a system of Avhich we have 
always been an ardent supporter. Nevertheless, we look upon 
this book as one that may be read with profit by all not big- 
oted in the belief that perfection has been reached in our 
present methods of education under State laws. 

From a mere cursory examination of the book we "find much 
in sentiment as well as considerable in assumed facts to which 
we dissent inioto, but until time and opportunities permit a 
more thorough examination we shall make no effort at a review 
or answer to any of the statements presented, or expression of 
opinion as to the merits or demerits of Mr. Montgomery's pro- 
posed changes in our school laws or school system." 

The San Francisco Evening Bulletin of February 16, 1878, 
had the following: 

"ZACH. MONTGOMERY ON THE SCHOOL QUESTION. 

"There is one thing Ave like about Zach. Montgomery. He 
is outspoken. He does not mince words or "falter in a double 
sense." The reader is not left in doubt as to what he means, 
or how he proposes to correct the evils, real or imaginary, he 
combats. We believe, moreover, that he is scrupulously hon- 
est. He is the farthest possible remove from a demagogue; for 
the views he advocates are not and probably never will be 
popular. He looks upon the Common School system as the bane 
of American society — the author of all our social woes. And 
so impressed is he Avitli this belief, so earnest is his conviction 
that it is the central curse of the land, that he has gone to the 
trouble and exj)ense of printing a book on the subject, which is 
entitled: 'The Poison Fountain, or Anti-Parental Education; 
Essays and Discussions on the School Question.' It contains one 
hundred and eighty-nine pages, and traces the decline and down- 



200 Testimonials. 

fall of parental autliorlty, the ruin of family government; and the 
alarming increase of crime, pauperism, insanity and suicide in 
the United States, wliicli are, in the author's view, the direct 
and legitimate offspring of our anti-parental Public School sys-: 
tem; compares it with the parental system and claims to prove 
by official figures that those trained under the former system 
furnish in proportion to population six criminals for every one 
furnished by those trained under the latter system. It must be 
admitted that the author's positions are fortified by some sug- 
gestive facts. The weak points of our school system are pointed 
out with much clearness, and the most is made of some grave 
errors in the school administration here and elsewhere. But 
when Mr. Montgomery asks us to accept his sweeping assertion 
that the system is a curse to a free country, he asks what is re- 
volting to the moral sense of the great body of the American 
people. Our Common School system, with all its faults, is vastly 
better than what preceded it, and the demoralization which the 
author charges to its account has quite a different parentage 
from what he assigns to it." 



x\n Encouraging Voice from the California State University. 

The following is a letter addressed to the author of " Poison 

Fountain " by one of the most distinguished professors of the 

California State Universit}^, a gentleman who, as an author and 

scientist, has acquired a world-wide reputation : 

"Univeesity of Califoenia, ) 

" Beekeley Cal., April 8, 1878. ( 

"Dear Sir: I have read your book with some care, and have 
lent it to others, who, on my representation, desired to read it. 
The subject is one on which I have thought much, but which is 
very complex, and has many sides, and therefore cannot be dis- 
cussed in a letter. 

"This much I can say, however: I fully concur with you in 
your view that any education which weakens the family tie, 
strikes at the very foundation of society, and no amount of 
good in other directions can atone for this greatest of all evils. 
I fully concur with you also in your opposition to compidsory 
State education. This certainly strikes at the integrity of the 
fainily, for it makes children "the wards of the State." I fully 
believe also that private schools, each parent choosing his owu, 



Testimonials. 201 

furnish a better education, all tilings considered, than any Pub- 
lic School system. 

But on the other hand, I perceive also that private schools 
must be supplemented by ]30or "schools,"" and I well know the 
evils and the odium of poor school systems like all other public 
charities. Unless, indeed, the several churches should under- 
take the poor schools. This would. I think, take away much 
of the odium. My present feeling, therefore, is this: I am not 
prepared to 02)pose the Avhole Public School system until I am 
more convinced than I am yet that its evils cannot be amended 
without the total destruction of the system. I am not yet sure 
that its evils are now greater than its benefits, or greater than 
other systems, or that these evils cannot be greatly diminished, 
if aiot removed, by the prevalence of the proper virus. That 
there are evils connected with the system, I have no doubt, and 
that you have pointed out some of these, I have also little 
doubt; but that this is the fountain of all the poison of modern 
society is perhaps more doubtful. 

"Finally, the evils of State education, such as they are, show 
themselves most clearly in the early education. In the highest 
education: t. e., in university education, I think they almost, if 
not Avholly, disappear, because university education deals, or 
ought to deal, with Qnen, not boys. Besides, the appliances of 
university education are so expensive as to forbid the under- 
taking of this grade by private enterprise, or by private munifi- 
cence, unless in very wealthy and highly cultured communi- 
ties. I am quite clear, therefore, that State education here is 
the only possible in young States, and young States can best 
aftbrd to endow such institutes loithout any tax o)i the peo'ple. 

"I thank you very cordially for your little book. I greatly 
admire its strong sense and its direct, trenchant, vigorous lan- 
guage. Very truly, yours, 

"Joseph Le Conte." 



i^ 






-5- ^\ - 




O N G- 



^^^ 



)0 <- %:^=i:^^ 



%># 






cP' .^ 



'^o a^ 




t/> 



,#■ 



e^i. 



:/^ > 



T N 



A^ 



A 



^^^ .^^ 



0^ 



\0 ^ "^ o « 1 •* .A. 

9 1 -\ * \ V 







>. e^ 






-f- 



V 



A 



^\^\^ ,^°I^"«."^9, ' 




oV 













1 N 




A 



O' 



' .^ 






,-0' 







%<^ 



% <^^' 



,-^^' 






" * '<P 


















•^- "' /. s^ ^^ ■ - < 



V V 






'^•<.-. 

















,^^^ NOV. 68 

K^_# N, MANCHESTER 
BEi_ INDIANA ' 



